Implications of China's innovation policy shift: Does “indigenous” mean closed?

Sebastian Losacker and Ingo Liefner

Growth and Change, 2020, vol. 51, issue 3, 1124-1141

Abstract: China's government aims to become an innovation nation and promotes the development of so‐called indigenous innovation. Under this paradigm of state‐encouraged innovation, however, it is unclear how domestic firms organize their innovation processes. We distinguish between two strategies in that respect: closed versus open innovation. Our findings suggest that firms with closed innovation processes collaborate in close geographic distance, rely on DUI‐modes of learning, and collaborations are based on guanxi. In contrast, firms with open innovation processes collaborate over large distances and rely on STI‐modes of learning that are not necessarily guanxi‐based. The findings help to understand the heterogeneous nature of indigenous innovation in China.

Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12400

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:growch:v:51:y:2020:i:3:p:1124-1141

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0017-4815

Access Statistics for this article

Growth and Change is currently edited by Dan Rickman and Barney Warf

More articles in Growth and Change from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().