• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2013

Since the 1990s, the Japanese government has made considerable attempts at stimulating innovation with an aim to pull the country out of a possibly permanent economic decline. Several laws and policy initiatives were introduced to encourage better interaction between universities (and research institutions) and industry. The results of these efforts have been mixed. While the number of university-industry joint and commissioned research has increased, revenues from the licensing of university-owned patents have fluctuated year by year. Although the number of startups and spin-offs from universities rose, their long-term survival and contribution to the economy remain uncertain. The Japanese experience features both strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include the long-term commitment of policy makers, the ability to set specific targets, and the active engagement of several key economic ministries. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these policy initiatives was hampered by limitations within the policies concerning the roles of universities and their mode of interaction with industry based on intellectual property rights, the inadequacy of demand-side innovation policies, the fragmentation of bureaucracy, and a lack of a credible evaluation system.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.206-222
• /
• 1997

The conventional analysis with which justifies government intervention of the private sector's innovation activities is the market failure approach. According to such analysis, fund allocation through autonomous market mechanisms is not optimal in technology financing because of the disparity between the desirable level of investment for society as a whole and that for private firms. To optimize the fund allocation, public policies such as subsidy, preferencial loan and venture capital investment programs are designed for technology development projects performed by private firms. They, however, have not been effective in increasing private investment for such projects. In most cases, it was found that little considerations given to the relationship between uncertainty embodied in technology development projects and each types of financing. With respect to optimizing fund allocation, technology development projects should be financed by different means according to their probability of success and the expected value of technology. Employing various theoretical models on financing decision-making we verify here that technology development projects to be supported by commercial banks or venture capital institutions is limited contingent upon levels of uncertainty adn expected value. Under the assumption that financial institutions are risk averse, loan or investment can be available only if the probability of success of the project is higher than the probability premium and the current market rate of interest. Therefore, the projects that have lower probability of success and/or small expected return are excluded from commercial loan or investment programs. However, the remaining projects, whose probability of success is low but with high expected return, may be applied under government subsidy programs. To achieve optimality of fund allocation and to activate technology financing, we conclude that there should be a systematic division of role among financial institutions including government commercial banks, and venture capital institutions.

• The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.271-279
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers of university and industry cooperation and to develop recommendations for the internal ecosystem of technology commercialization. The research method used is a survey of three categories of experts from 9 universities of Almaty (researchers, technology transfer managers, spin-off-owners). Despite the strong efforts of the government of Kazakhstan in building innovation infrastructure, there is a low level of innovation activity, less than 5% of university inventions are transferred into the industry. The results of the expert survey showed that the main barriers for cooperation between university and industry are: lack of resources to build university-industry links, lack of time due to high teaching load, poor qualification of technology transfer managers and lack of networking with industry. Based on the results of the expert survey, it is proposed to develop the ecosystem for the commercialization of university-based technologies, for which the following economic activities are important: human resources, financing, intellectual property management system, and intermediary infrastructure. The results of this study can be applied in developing the strategies and policies for universities, public research organizations, as well as for national R&D and higher education policies.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.9 no.6
• /
• pp.295-311
• /
• 2011

The government is working out the development of a venture enterprise through a venture certification system. The broad effects of its policies are anticipated by the government and revealed in the 'The Survey on Actual Condition of Venture Enterprises 2010'. These benefits include the revitalization of start-up, promotion of technological innovation, progress in marketing ability, improvement in corporate image, financing and investment, and benefit from tax reduction & exemption. However, with the estimation of production function and sales function, which both uses capital and labor as a basic elements, it was found that only 'financing and ease of investment' produces a statistically significant effect on production and sales. An addition, this study looks into whether venture-supporting system are helpful to the eradication of technical inefficiency. The policies brought about positive changes in reduction of technical inefficiencies except with regard to the ease of start-up where it was found that an increase in inefficiencies was the result.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.1 no.3
• /
• pp.1-15
• /
• 2010

This paper makes the case that a new policy strategy to enhance a global green recovery is needed urgently. The new strategy requires two essential elements. First, G20 economies should follow the lead of South Korea and China and turn their green stimulus investments into a serious long-term commitment, and to support these investments, they should adopt environmental pricing policies and instigate pricing and regulatory reforms to reduce carbon dependency. Second, the G20 also needs to target and coordinate assistance to developing economies in science, technology and innovation (STI) for clean energy. Such assistance is essential to help developing economies to overcome the skills, technological and capital gap that they face in clean energy technologies over the long term. Reform of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is also necessary to establish a long-term global price signal for carbon, and to increase the coverage of developing economies, the sectors and technologies and the overall financing of clean energy projects. Formulating such a policy strategy should appeal to both the Asian-Pacific and Western economies comprising the G20, and by working together to formulate such a strategy, the G20 could lead the way toward a new era of global economic management and STI cooperation in clean energy.

• Korean small business review
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.65-87
• /
• 2010

With the advent of knowledge-based society, the revitalization of technological innovation type SMEs, termed "inno-biz" hereafter, has been globally recognized as a government policymakers' primary concern in strengthening national competitiveness, and much effort is being put into establishing polices of boosting the start-ups and innovation capability of SMEs. Especially, in that the inno-biz enables national economy to get vitalized by widening world markets with its superior technology, and thus, taking the initiative of extremely competitive world markets, its growth and development has greater significance. In the case of Korea, the government has been maintaining the policies since the late 1990s of stimulating the growth of SMEs as well as building various infrastructures to foster the start-ups of the SMEs such as venture businesses with high technology. In addition, since the enactment of "Innovation Promotion Law for SMEs" in 2001, the government has been accelerating the policies of prioritizing the growth and development of inno-biz. So, for the sound growth and development of Korean inno-biz, this paper intends to offer effective management strategies for SMEs and suggest proper policies for the government, by researching into the effect of technological innovation capability and technology commercialization capability as the primary business resources on business performance in Korean SMEs in the light of market information orientation. The research is carried out on Korean companies characterized as inno-biz. On the basis of OSLO manual and prior studies, the research categorizes their status. R&D capability, technology accumulation capability and technological innovation system are categorized into technological innovation capability; product development capability, manufacturing capability and marketing capability into technology commercialization capability; and increase in product competitiveness and merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. Then the effect of each component on business performance is substantially analyzed. In addition, the mediation effect of technological innovation and technology commercialization capability on business performance is observed by the use of the market information orientation as a parameter. The following hypotheses are proposed. H1 : Technology innovation capability will positively influence business performance. H1-1 : R&D capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-2 : R&D capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H1-3 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-4 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H1-5 : Technological innovation system will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-6 : Technological innovation system will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2 : Technology commercializing capability will positively influence business performance. H2-1 : Product development capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-2 : Product development capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2-3 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-4 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2-5 : Marketing capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-6 : Marketing capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H3 : Technology innovation capability will positively influence market information orientation. H3-1 : R&D capability will positively influence information generation. H3-2 : R&D capability will positively influence information diffusion. H3-3 : R&D capability will positively influence information response. H3-4 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information generation. H3-5 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information diffusion. H3-6 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information response. H3-7 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information generation. H3-8 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information diffusion. H3-9 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information response. H4 : Technology commercialization capability will positively influence market information orientation. H4-1 : Product development capability will positively influence information generation. H4-2 : Product development capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-3 : Product development capability will positively influence information response. H4-4 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information generation. H4-5 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-6 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information response. H4-7 : Marketing capability will positively influence information generation. H4-8 : Marketing capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-9 : Marketing capability will positively influence information response. H5 : Market information orientation will positively influence business performance. H5-1 : Information generation will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-2 : Information generation will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H5-3 : Information diffusion will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-4 : Information diffusion will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H5-5 : Information response will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-6 : Information response will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H6 : Market information orientation will mediate the relationship between technology innovation capability and business performance. H7 : Market information orientation will mediate the relationship between technology commercializing capability and business performance. The followings are the research results : First, as for the effect of technological innovation on business performance, the technology accumulation capability and technological innovating system have a positive effect on increase in product competitiveness and merits for new technology and/or product development, while R&D capability has little effect on business performance. Second, as for the effect of technology commercialization capability on business performance, the effect of manufacturing capability is relatively greater than that of merits for new technology and/or product development. Third, the mediation effect of market information orientation is identified to exist partially in information generation, information diffusion and information response. Judging from these results, the following analysis can be made : On Increase in product competitiveness, directly related to successful technology commercialization of technology, management capability including technological innovation system, manufacturing capability and marketing capability has a relatively strong effect. On merits for new technology and/or product development, on the other hand, capability in technological aspect including R&D capability, technology accumulation capability and product development capability has relatively strong effect. Besides, in the cast of market information orientation, the level of information diffusion within an organization plays and important role in new technology and/or product development. Also, for commercial success like increase in product competitiveness, the level of information response is primarily required. Accordingly, the following policies are suggested : First, as the effect of technological innovation capability and technology commercialization capability on business performance differs among SMEs; in order for SMEs to secure competitiveness, the government has to establish microscopic policies for SMEs which meet their needs and characteristics. Especially, the SMEs lacking in capital and labor are required to map out management strategies of focusing their resources primarily on their strengths. And the government needs to set up policies for SMEs, not from its macro-scaled standpoint, but from the selective and concentrative one that meets the needs and characteristics of respective SMEs. Second, systematic infrastructures are urgently required which lead technological success to commercial success. Namely, as technological merits at respective SME levels do not always guarantee commercial success, the government should make and effort to build systematic infrastructures including encouragement of M&A or technology trade, systematic support for protecting intellectual property, furtherance of business incubating and industrial clusters for strengthening academic-industrial network, and revitalization of technology financing, in order to make successful commercialization from technological success. Finally, the effort to innovate technology, R&D, for example, is essential to future national competitiveness, but its result is often prolonged. So the government needs continuous concern and funding for basic science, in order to maximize technological innovation capability. Indeed the government needs to examine continuously whether technological innovation capability or technological success leads satisfactorily to commercial success in market economic system. It is because, when the transition fails, it should be left to the government.

• Industry Promotion Research
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.93-103
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to provide a basis for the sustainability of cooperatives, To provide theoretical support for healthy development and academic research. The purpose of this study is to improve people's understanding of cooperatives (farmer professional cooperatives) in China. First of all, we analyze the background and concept of the introduction of cooperatives and the use of the latest advance research in China and South Korea; Secondly, we propose the status of Chinese cooperatives and the growth process of the legal system; Thirdly, we focus on the law and system of Chinese farmer professional cooperatives. Therefore, this study proposes the following four enlightenments : First, China should continue to improve and improve its legal systems, such as the tax assistance legal system, financial preferential legal system, and technical assistance legal system. Secondly, it is necessary to strengthen government supervision of cooperatives, improve the internal system of farmer cooperatives, improve the financing policies of farmer cooperatives, grasp the relationship between development and regulation, and form a development model centered on farmers. Third, the development of farmer cooperatives must be integrated with the local culture. Fourth, we must strengthen the training of cooperative members and strive to improve the level of management and self-innovation.