Technological Innovation Systems and National Performance - Essay Example

Technological Innovation Systems and National Performance Technological innovation within a country is a critical point of focus for state governments that intend to achieve long-term development. Notably, different countries show varied attention to the integration of technology within their development framework. However, contemporary research shows that there exists a direct relation between the development of a country and the level of attention that it awards to it innovation system. Evidently, technology influences the efficiency of a country's productive activities, which in turn influences the development of a country. However, critics point out that investment in technological systems is a great expense for countries and this amount can be used for direct development. The argument is that countries that over invest in technology end up exhausting valuable resources that would have been used in other areas of development. From a critical point of view, innovation in technology is an expense for a country in the short-term but has many benefits in the long-term. A comparison of countries such as UK, US Germany and Japan points out technological innovations systems has great value for any country. In this light, difference in technology innovation systems leads to difference in long-term performance in the world. The concept of technological innovation within countries is a topic that has generated a lot of attention in the current century. As global research bodies such as the OECD investigate the cause for global economic difference within countries, technology innovation has become a central point of focus. Innovations refer to the ability of a country to integrate technology within its infrastructure in an approach to streamline its economic operations (Dadashzadeh & ebrary, 2002). Evidently, different countries have shown different level of commitment to technological development. Notably, theorists point out that the development of an economy can be measured from the amount of technology that a country has adopted within its operations. The concept of technology is historical but gained roots in the 20th century after the 1930s global recession. At this time, countries awakened to the reality of the worst economic depression and there was pressure for countries to emerge from this crisis (Bergan, 2014). At the same time, technology became a well-defined concept as different countries discovered the need to use technology to streamline their development plans. Currently, technology proliferation has become a reality that no country can afford to ignore in an era of global interconnection. The value of technology within a country is a topic that has generated a lot of attention in the modern world. Lowe (1995) notes that technology influences the level of industrialization within a country, which in turn determines economic development. Industrialization process is technology dependent and is crucial for a countries economic growth. Industrialization theories provide that difference in industrialization is the determinant for a country economic position. The global economic difference is an ideal example for the impact of industrialization within different countries. While industrialized countries such as US are at the top level, third world countries are still striving to enhance their economies by industrializing. Additionally, technological innovation adds value to healthcare services, agriculture and mining. Apparently, technology innovation can be measured on the level of government expenditure on research and development and acquisition of technological infrastructure. In addition, the commitment of the government to liaise with other countries to acquire technology is a good measure for its commitment to innovation. The investment that a country makes is the short-term endurance a government has to undergo while pursuing long-term growth. Countries that ignore innovation systems are bound to fail. A comparative approach to technological innovation systems would be a good platform to compare the impact of such systems within different countries. Countries such as Germany, Japan, UK and US have been in the frontline in the assessment of countries that have embraced technology as a crucial economic driver. In US, the concept of technology surfaced soon after the period of the Second World War. At the time of war, the country’s main focus was to invest in strengthening their military power by investing heavy budgets in technology development. The government majorly focussed on development of it military research framework as part of its strategy to position its security framework at a time of war. The semi-conductor technology was a major point of focus for many countries as countries strived to use the electronic technology to enhance their military communication infrastructure (Maidique & Zirger, 2010). However, the period after war market a time of economic development when the US federal government shifted its attention to economic growth. One factor that puts US ahead of countries such as Germany and UK is its investment in industrial research within the professional sector. However, Germany was a pace setter after launching academia as part of it research and development strategy. At the same time, UK was committed to professionalize its innovation systems by investing in the higher education research systems. Among the three countries, US moved at a faster rate than Germany and UK due its higher allocation of resources to research with institutions of higher learning (Dore, 2000). State funding led to the rapid development of engineering, metallurgy and mining. This explains why the US leads in industrialization due to its ability to launch timely programs that contributed to its development. After the Second World War, the US government, more than the UK government, was committed to research and development as shown by its increased funding in this sector. The government launched the Federal Support for University research program that intend to expand academic research in the US in tandem with its demand for technical knowledge. Besides, the US government supported learning institutions with the purchase of research equipment and facilities. From a different perspective, institutions became key players in innovation as they increase the pool of research professionals that feature on economic development. The cumulative impact of US innovation was increased commercial value and industrial acceleration. Notably, different countries have used different approaches towards technological innovation. In japan, technological adoption can be linked to the history close relationship that the government has formed with industry. Right from the 19th century, the Japan government started its technological integration as a way of improving its economy. The government was keen of technological transformation in its neighbourhood and was willing to import technological infrastructure. Notable hallmarks of innovation In Japan economy include construction of railway, machinery and textiles (Blackford, 2008). At this time, the Japan private sector was underdeveloped as compared to other countries such as Germany, US and UK (Willets, 2010). Therefore, the private sector lacked the potential to take technological risks. This is one of the major reasons why japan lagged behind the US infrastructural development. The government invested heavily on technological education as part of its long-term plans to improve economic development. A good example is the establishment of the Kogakury School that provided courses on engineering, telecommunication, construction, mining, ship building as well as metallurgy. These early scholars of technology later became private owners of technology companies. However, a comparison of the US and Japan shows that the innovation systems in Japan are still lagging behind in terms of financial support of research and development and curriculum transformation (Lewis, Fitzgerald and Harvey, 1996). Evidently, there is need for the Japan government to focus on the fast changes in technology and reflect their in the education systems. In Germany, there is evidence of sluggish innovation systems that is linked to its lagging economy as compared with other European countries. While UK and Germany adoption of technology started at the same time in history, it is apparent that the Germany educations systems were poor. In the 19th century, Germany established technology institutions as one way of developing their innovation systems. However, the school standards were too low most of them were closed down. This is a big drawback for the country as it lacked the necessary skills and personnel to advance innovation within the country. In the early 20th century, the government’ financial investment in technology increased as the government allocated more resources to the institutions (Bresnahan, 1981). This was a milestone in reinventing the technology wheel in the country as the country accelerated towards research and technology knowledge creation. After the Second World War, the country embraced technology as a tool for economic transformation as the country focussed on complex manufacturing processes. Laws on intellectual property and patents in among strategies that have accelerated innovation within the country (Gurry, 2010). The country encourages domestic investors and provides them with an opportunity to grow (Pauwels, Silva-Risso, Srinivasan & Hanssens, 2004). Today, Germany industry is the best in the complex manufacturing processes such car manufacturing, chemical industry and many others. Specialization in technology in German has given the country an upper hand to the country in comparison to US, Japan and UK in certain fields. The UK innovation system is has followed a peculiar route path since the conception of the word technology in the 19th century. Evidently, the UK government launched its research and development projects at the same time as the US government, but lagged to lack of satisfying budgetary allocation. Evidently, evidently, the UK government faced challenges in mobilising private investors to take risk in the industry (Sorge, Noorderhaven & Koen, C. (2015). Just like in Japan, the private sector was constrained and lacked the necessary financial strength to invest in technology. In the 20th century, the UK government paid particular attention in upgrading its education system to ensure that they have adequate professional with technical knowledge (Mansfield, 2009). OECD reports shows that the UK government investment in science in Engineering is one of its strong innovation strategies (Nelson, 1993). Although the number of UK professionals with education of technology is slightly lower than that in US, it is clear that it has an adequate pool and there are more initiatives such as employee training and provision of patent rights (Odagiri & Goto, 1996). The UK ranked higher than Germany in terms of intellectual property and private risk in the economic sector. In this light, it is clear that UK is a leader in terms of developing technological innovation within the country. The automobile industry is one of the sectors that the competition between Japan, UK, US and Germany has reflected the difference innovation and technological development. The competition started in the 1980s when all countries focussed more closely on issues of manufacturing cost, assembly and innovation. The US and Japanese manufacturers were the main players as they had already captured the global market in a great way. Japanese automobiles we much better than the others due in terms of assembly, quality and dealer satisfaction. In comparison, the Germany Ford company produces twice the amount of UK production (Domansky, 2006). However, the UK closed the gap when they invented the Nissan Motors UK Company that produced vehicles at a rate much equal to that of Japanese Oppama. UK overturned the table when they started investing in the assembly of Toyota and Honda Cars. Bridging the gap entailed the development of new efficient manufacturing strategies that were far much innovative than those adopted by Japanese automobile companies (Ingrassia, 2010). However, it is apparent UK automobile industry has faced a lot of challenges due to challenges of specialization. High specialization in Germany has given them an upper hand in the production of unique models such as Mercedez (Monteverde & Teece, 2000). The competition within the automobile industry signifies the difference in innovation systems and technology integration in economic development. In conclusion, innovation and technology development are major drivers of economic advantage within a country. A comparison of the UK, US, Japan and Germany technological innovation systems signifies that a country’s investment in technology is direct proportional to the economic development within the country. A country adoption of technology can be measured in terms of its financial investment, intellectual property, creation of science and technology institutions and training. A good measure of innovation can be assessed within the automobile market across the borders. Highly specialized companies such as Germany and Japan have profited from innovative car production while countries such as UK are climbing the ladder to become a global leader in car manufacturing. Such investments are important in promoting industrialization which is one of the fundamental economic reapers in the world today. On this ground, developing nations can improve their economic production by focusing on technology adoption which has long-term benefits. Bibliography Berghahn, V., (2014), American Big Business in Britain and Germany: a Comparative History of Two Special Relationships in the Twentieth Century UK: Princeton UP. Blackford, M., (2008). The Rise of Modern Business: Great Britain, the US, Germany, Japan and China.UK: London Printers. Bresnahan, T. F. (1981). Departures from marginal-cost pricing in the American automobile industry: Estimates for 1977–1978. Journal of Econometrics, 17(2), 201-227. Dadashzadeh, M., & ebrary, Inc. (2002). Information technology management in developing countries. Hershey, PA: IRM Press. Domansky, L. R. (2006). Automobile industry: Current issues. New York: Novinka Books. Dore, R, (2000). Stock market capitalism: welfare capitalism: Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons. Gurry, F., (2010). World Intellectual Property Indicators, World intellectual Property Organization. Ingrassia, P. (2010). Crash course: The American automobile industry's road from glory to disaster. New York: Random House. Lewis, M. Fitzgerald, R.and C.Harvey, (1996), The Growth of Nations: Culture, Competitiveness and the Problem of Globalization. Bristol: Bristol Academic Press. Top of Form Lowe, P. (1995). The management of technology: Perception and opportunities. London, Angleterre: Chapman and Hall. Maidique, M. A., & Zirger, B. J. (2010). A study of success and failure in product innovation: the case of the US electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 31(4), 192-203. Mansfield, E. (2009). The speed and cost of industrial innovation in Japan and the United States: External vs. internal technology. Management Science, 34(10), 1157-1168. Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research policy, 37(4), 596-615. Monteverde, K., & Teece, D. J. (2000). Supplier switching costs and vertical integration in the automobile industry. The Bell Journal of Economics, 206-213. Nelson, R. R., & Nelson, K. (2002). Technology, institutions, and innovation systems. Research policy, 31(2), 265-272. Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Odagiri, H., & Goto, A. (1996). Technology and Industrial Development in Japan: Building Capabilities by Learning, Innovation and Public Policy. OUP Catalogue. Pauwels, K., Silva-Risso, J., Srinivasan, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2004). New products, sales promotions, and firm value: The case of the automobile industry. Journal of marketing, 68 (4), 142-156. Top of Form Sorge, A., Noorderhaven, N. G., & Koen, C. (2015). Comparative international management.Bottom of Form New York: Routledge. Willets, D, 2010. The 2010 R&D Score Board, The Department of Business Innovation and Skills. Read More