Implications of China's innovation policy shift: Does “indigenous” mean closed?
Sebastian Losacker and
Growth and Change, 2020, vol. 51, issue 3, 1124-1141
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.
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
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 ().