Silicon Valley, France and China: a comparative study of innovation systems and policies
| Pages | 194-214 |
| Date | 02 October 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCEFTS-05-2016-0015 |
| Published date | 02 October 2017 |
| Author | K.C. Fung,Nathalie Aminian |
| Subject Matter | Economics,International economics |
Silicon Valley, France and China:
a comparative study of innovation
systems and policies
K.C. Fung
Department of Economics, University of California, Santa Cruz,
California, USA, and
Nathalie Aminian
Universite de Rouen Unites de Formation et de Recherche Droit Sciences
Economiques et Gestion, France
Abstract
Purpose –In this paper, the authors aim to examine some characteristics of the innovation system and
policy in France and China. For comparison, they also highlight some high technology features of Silicon
Valley and California.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors study the characteristicsof innovation in France and in
China. The authorsexamine the technology systems and policies in both countries and compare their features
with thosein SiliconValley.
Findings –As far as France is concerned, it can be stated that the innovationsystem and policy are under
transformation, going from a strong state involvement to a more decentralized framework. This evolution
leads to a multi-levelgovernance of the innovation system and to the emergence of newactors. For China, the
most interesting developmentin China is the evolution of its internet-related sector. The authorsargue here
that the internet-driven economy is a radical, systemic technological change and it is rapidly growing in
China.
Originality/value –One of the earliest papers comparing the innovationpolicies and activities in France,
China and Silicon Valley.
Keywords China, France, Innovation systems, Silicon Valley, Technology policies
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The study of Freeman (1987) on the Japanese national innovation system (IS) stimulated a
growing number of contributions to the IS approach at a national but also regional and
sectoral level.
Taking into consideration the level of analysis, Edquist (1997a,1997b) classified
academic studies as follows:
National ISs (Freeman, 1987;Lundvall, 1992;Nelson, 1993).
Regional ISs (Camagni, 1991;Cooke et al., 1997;Braczyk et al., 1998;Cooke, 2001;
Asheim and Isaksen, 1997).
Sectoral and “technological ISs”(Breschi and Malerba, 1997;Carlsson, 1995;
Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991;Malerba, 2004).
The central idea behind the IS approach is that innovation and diffusion of technology is
both an individual and a collective deed. Determinants of technological change are to be
JCEFTS
10,3
194
Journalof Chinese Economic and
ForeignTrade Studies
Vol.10 No. 3, 2017
pp. 194-214
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-4408
DOI 10.1108/JCEFTS-05-2016-0015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-4408.htm
found not only within the individual firm but also within the IS. According to Freeman
(1987), IS can be characterized as “[...].Thenetwork of institutions in the public and private
sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify, and diffuse new
technologies”. Accordingly, the comprehension of innovation process has important
implications for the designand implementation of public policy to support innovation.
The implications of the IS approach for public policyare in terms of incentive, focus and
instruments. This is why, the academic discussion leaped in the political sphere. The
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) played a significant role
in promoting the use of the IS approach in the design and implementation of innovation
policy in the OECD countries (Godin, 2004). However, as argued by Mytelka and Smith
(2002), the IS approach been quite unsuccessful in making the task of designing policy and
proposing policy instruments easier. Chaminade and Edquist (2006) propose a survey of
academic research on IS approach and give insights on how IS can be handled for
innovation policypurposes.
In this context, it is useful to adopt a comparative approach to discuss the role of the
government and the interplay between private and public actors in the IS. Therefore, the
starting point of the analysis is a geographical area (as in National Systems of Innovation
[NSI] or Regional Systems of Innovation [RSI]) or an industrial sector (Sectoral Innovation
System [SIS])[1].
In this paper, we will provide a critical examination of some important trends and
features of innovation activities in France and China, using SiliconValley, CA, as the basis
for comparison. We will provide analysis related to recent characteristics as well as some
recent historicalaccounts.
Silicon Valley and California are the most fertile regions for innovation activities, and
they act as the focus of comparison for the two economies that we will examinein this paper:
France and China.
In addition to data and insights pertaining to trends and characteristics of high
technology and innovation,we will also use some case studies to illustrate certain important
features of recent technology advances. The main hypothesis we have for this paper is as
follows: Silicon Valley is the founding region of the computer, the internet age and social
media. As a technology cluster, it has repeatedly changed from one technological paradigm
to the next (from mainframe hardware to software to internet-driven tech, big data, cloud
computing, social media and apps, etc.). Radical changes and adaptations have become
routines and are embedded in the social and business norms of the Valley. These paradigm
shifts are achieved by the rise of very different, new and young corporations (e.g. Hewlett–
Packard and IBM are no longer leaders in software or searchengines; instead Microsoft and
Google have taken theirplaces; Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter are pioneers insocial media
and apps). Given that innovation oftenexhibits path-dependence and persistence (Rosenberg,
1994;Arthur, 1994), it is expected that in the near future, Silicon Valley and California will
continue to be a global leader in fostering technological changes. For China, it has made a
big leap from manufacturing basic computers and functional laptops to cheap competitive
cell phones and more recently to internet-driven innovative activities. Furthermore, like
some East Asian economies (e.g.South Korea), it has the great potential of opening up a lead
in mobile usage and technology (Yip,2014;Leung, 2014). It has the advantage of a large pool
of talented engineers and scientists, some of whom have work experiences in Silicon Valley
and California. In the terminology of the innovationliterature, China has the competence as
well as the dynamic capabilities in furthering its innovation activities (Teece et al.,1997).
Furthermore, China has immense scale and a uniform linguistic advantage,with 1.3 billion
people all using the same simplifiedChinese characters. This allows the internet companies
Innovation
systems and
policies
195
To continue reading
Request your trial