Appendix 6 4 - Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems

Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark Building 110, P.O Box 49, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark Tel.: +45 4677 5157 Email address: sergio.jofre@risoe.dk Abstract: This paper presents an overview of the Japanese and US national innovation systems The information is organized, analyzed and discussed in the context of the Triple Helix Model of university-government-industry relationship Current innovation systems in Japan and the US are in a state of transition Main drivers behind the adaptation process are globalization of economies and sustainable development Despite historical and cultural disparities, the innovation systems of these countries are evolving towards a common strategy based on the concept of “innovation ecosystems” This concept stresses the dynamics of innovation in connection with evolving environments, economies and societies The analysis indicates that in the history of both systems there is a clear trend to learn from common success and failures Therefore, the disparities between the systems observed in previous decades are now less evident The transition process in both systems is guided by concerted national actions However, the transition in Japan, currently in a more advanced stage, shows a greater systemic approach guided by comprehensive plans and roadmaps for medium and long-term strategies As an important reflection from this analysis we consider that from a systemic perspective, models of collaboration are less relevant that the benefit implicit in the simple action of collaborating This is the constant creation, diffusion, and absorption of knowledge as economic and social inputs/outputs within an innovation system Availability and diversity of collaborations at any time and rate can bring then, the desirable consequence of synergy and the required systemic flexibility to enhance its adaptability to changing environments Introduction This document has been prepared as a supportive reading material in the context of the WP1 SUCCES project The primarily objective is to give an overview of the National Systems of Innovations (NIS) in Japan and the US In order to establish a referential context with SUCCES’s own objectives, the information is presented and analyzed in the ambit of the three most relevant elements of a NIS: universities, government, and industries 1.1 Dynamics of innovation and innovation systems The dynamics of innovation have been initially explained in the context of a linear process in which new ideas are – successfully – transformed into new products In this model therefore, innovation is the profitable outcome of a process that involves different production stages and the participation of particular business agents Thus, the lineal model regards businesses as the source of innovation Overtime, this perception has changed since many other sources of innovation have been identified (Von Hippel, 1988) Later on, theoretical developments advocated the dynamic and complex nature of innovation as a systemic process that takes place simultaneously at different organizational levels in which a variety of agents interacts within a flow of knowledge, technologies and resources In this systemic approach, innovation occurs and diffuses at any time and rate within organizations and at the interface of their interaction Considering the broad scenario of interpretations and applications of innovation, it is necessary to remark that no single pattern of innovation exists but diverse ways of new combinations (Europe INNOVA, 2008) Innovation research is an elementary part of a broader debate regarding the nature of economic growth There is still a considerable discussion on Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 how nations can stimulate and sustain growth, however this debate is now focusing on a unified ‘growth theory’ (See Galor, 2005), in which the capability of human capital creation and technological development is the main source of economic disparities across nations and regions Galor (2005) argues that “unified theories of economic growth generate direct hypotheses about the factors that determine the timing of the transition from stagnation to growth” and thus the factors that contributed to the global divergence This implies that “…the timing of the transition may differ significantly across countries and regions due to historical accidents, as well as variation in geographical, cultural, social and institutional factors, trade patterns, colonial status, and public policy that have affected the relationship between human capital formation and technological progress” In the context of innovation studies, differential growth patterns and their determinants are analyzed under a systemic approach, often within national boundaries The so-called National Innovation System or (NIS) has rapidly gained popularity among scholars and policy makers looking for a conceptual framework able to explain the origin and dynamics of differential innovation performances among countries 1.2 National Innovation System (NIS): During the last two decades, much attention has been given to the concept of National Innovation systems (NIS) This concept assumes that flows of technology and information among people, companies and institutions are crucial to the innovative process (OECD, 1997) At national level, innovation and technical development are the result of a complex set of interactions between agents producing, distributing and applying different types of knowledge Then, the innovative performance of a country greatly depends on the particular arrangement of these agents within the collective knowledge system and the technologies they use (OECD, 1997) These agents are primarily private enterprises, universities, public research institutes, and the people within them The linkages between these agents can take the form of joint research and publications, personnel exchanges, cross-patenting, purchase of equipment and a variety of other channels Although NIS is a widely used term, there is no single definition of it (See OECD, 1997) One of the often quoted definitions is: “ the elements and relationships which interact in the production, diffusion and use of new, and economically useful, knowledge and are either located within or rooted inside the borders of a nation state.” (Lundvall, 1992) Although, definitions of NIS are varied, they all recognize the interconnection of actions between different national agents engaged in innovation The national innovation system approach acquires analytical importance in the technology field due to three factors: 1) the recognition of the economic importance of knowledge; 2) the increasing use of systems approaches; and 3) the growing number of institutions involved in knowledge generation (OECD, 1997) As a subject of study, NIS focuses on the flow of knowledge and therefore, it directly regards the analysis of performance in ‘knowledge-based economies’, or economies that are directly based on the production and use of knowledge and information (OECD, 1996) The knowledge embedded in human beings and technologies has been central to economic development but its importance has been only acknowledged recently The relevance of human capital and the knowledge embedded in technology is increasing steadily since more economic activities are becoming knowledge-intensive Although national systems of innovation are widely used due to its convenient nationwide scope, literature describes other concepts involving different geographical and organizational levels Hence, innovation systems can be also analyzed at the level of regions (Regional Innovation Systems), sectors (Sectoral Systems of Innovation), and technologies (Technological Systems of Innovation) These analytical frameworks, although referring to different levels of aggregation, support the understanding of innovation in a systemic perspective In this perspective, “a system is an entity comprising elements that interact with one another” providing a model of reality designed for analytical purpose (Markard and Truffer, 2008) In Innovation systems – at any aggregation level – “elements” are often conceptualized as interacting organizations or institutions within a given institutional environment – the system The properties of these interactions can be regarded as the Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 system functions Different innovation systems can be assessed and compared with regard to the functions they fulfil (Markard and Truffer, 2008) 1.3 The Triple Helix Model of university-industry-government relationship The particular educational, economic and political environments of countries define the agents – their characterization, role and interaction – within the innovation system (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000) Thus, fundamental agents of an innovation system are university (education), industry (economy) and the government (politics) Understanding the dynamics of their relationship gives an insight into characteristic functions and operations in the innovation system The Triple Helix Model of innovation (See Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000), emphasizes the role of university in the innovation system and its co-dependency with and within government and industry (Figure 1a) Figure The triple helix model (adapted from Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000): 1a (left) generation of knowledge infrastructure in terms of overlapping institutional spheres Each sphere takes the role of the other and hybrid and tri-lateral networks emerge at the interfaces The “Triple Helix" model of innovation captures multiple reciprocal relationships at different points in the process of knowledge capitalization; 1b (right) the overlay of communications and expectations at the network level guides the reconstruction of institutional arrangements overtime (system evolution) The Triple Helix as an analytical model adds to the description of the variety of institutional arrangements and policy models and an explanation of their dynamics Therefore the model supports the hypothesis that universities, governments and industry play an equally important role in innovation and that interdependency and evolution is what defines the systemic outcome over time (See Figure 1b) This appraisal help us to understand how operational units and functions in an innovation system evolve Consequently, the model can help us to discriminate between “bottom up” or “top down” policies on the base of trends and patterns in the university-industry-government relation In this context, the use of functional success criteria may also consider the ‘weight’ of time and history as important assessment condition This is the understanding of success as an incidental event and not as an everlasting condition In a historical context, most countries have formerly based their innovation systems in a triple helix in which governments did greatly influence the performance and relation of universities and industries Hence, boundaries and competences of the tree agents were defined and did not overlap Nowadays, most countries are in transition to – or fully developing – a triple helix model in which each of the gents takes the role of the other and hybrid and tri-lateral networks emerge at the Interfaces (Figure 1a) The Japanese System of Innovation Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 2.1 Overview The Japanese Innovation System has experienced important changes since the early 1980s, or in other words, since the beginnings of the long-term macro-economic crisis from which the nation is recently emerging This period marks the end and the beginning of two different systems of innovation (Goto, 2000) The earlier, based on the integration of large companies and supply chains with self-sufficient “in-house” R&D – notoriously oriented to excel process innovation and the associated product development – and the present, a system derived from Japan’s own scientific and technological developments emphasising the creation of a “national innovation ecosystem” as a functional part of a major “global innovation ecosystem” (Arimoto, 2006; Watanabe and Fukuda, 2006) This new approach is a response to the need of creating a innovation system in line with the dynamics of globalization and the challenges of sustainable development, Figure (See Annex I) outlines the Japanese vision of a innovation ecosystem that aims a full-scale integration of all agents involved in the innovation process (Watanabe and Fukuda, 2006) Major cornerstones in this “transition” has been the transformation of the entire academic and research structure and the adaptation of the public administration to new Science and Technology (S&T) policies In general, the characteristic of the Japanese NIS has been influence greatly by the need to increase economic growth overcoming a lack of resources, space and energy Hence, Japan has built up an innovation system based on “technology substitution for energy” – or energy efficiency – emphasizing production efficiency (e.g the lean production concept) and increasing the manufacturing power (Kodama, 2006; 2007) 2.2 The role of universities Concrete and concerted actions were taken since the 1980s to bring more flexibility and dynamism to academic and research organizations The process of change finalized in year 2001 when national universities and public research institutes adopted the status of “Independent Administrative Agencies” or “corporations” (METI, 2007; Stanton and Hyeog, 2004) Since then, universities and research institutes gained greater managerial autonomy with enhanced decision-making power Currently, universities are fully implementing “private management practices” that include the participation of external partners Under the new independent administration system of universities, the private sector plays and important role in financing R&D activities The competition for funding is currently moving universities to look actively for collaboration with industry and other research institutions This trend is also inducing changes in the curricular design of universities and deep revisions of postgraduate’s courses are being implemented In this ambit, there is a tendency to increase the number of postdoctoral research fellows and PhD thesis performed by industry’s employees In addition, centres of excellence, large research infrastructure facilities, and frontier research dependencies are being created in order to harmonize scientific production with national S&T priorities In order to foster “openness” and international presence, foreign researchers and faculty staff are recruited in the basis of extended fix-term contracts Another important change is the introduction of new policies to enhance scientific production and quality performance among faculty and research staff These policies are mainly based on periodic salary reviews according to performance The new academic and research structure in Japan has been an important incentive for improving collaboration between universities and firms, living behind a long history of mutual antagonism A complementary measure was the adoption in 1999, of a provisional IPR law inspired in the (US, 1980) Bayh-Dole Act (1) The new IPR policy allows Japanese universities to license property rights to privates through Technology Licencing Organizations (TLOs), hence liberalizing the involvement of faculty staff in commercial activities (e.g., paid consulting and management positions in companies when commercializing inventions) (1) The Bayh-Dole Act (see http://206.151.87.67/docs/BayhDoleQA.htm): The Enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act (P.L 96-517), the "Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980" on December 12, 1980 created a uniform patent policy among the many federal agencies that fund research Bayh-Dole Act enables small businesses and non-profit organizations, including universities, to retain title to materials and products they invent under federal funding Amendments to the Act also created uniform licensing guidelines and expanded the law's purview to include all federally funded contractors (P.L.98-620) Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 However, it has been indicated that “informal” forms of collaboration such as those based on “open science” – or open access to science (free publications, open seminars, speeches, etc.) – are still a fundamental part of the Japanese innovation process (Motohashi, 2006) The period that follows the 2000s events has seen the creation of an increasing number of business incubators combining public and private efforts to increase competitiveness and entrepreneurship The immediate results of the reforms to high education and research has been reflected in a increase of Japan in the international share of scientific production, particularly in some of the fields that Japan has pointed out as a national priorities (National Science Board, 2008) 2.3 The role of government The changes in research and education are part of a major national reform that also concerned the entire public administration during the year 2001 Major changes were the strengthening of the coordination powers of the Prime Minister, the creation of councils in Key areas such as S&T and the reduction in the number of acting ministries and agencies (Tanaka, 2001) In the field of S&T, the biggest change was the merger of the former Science and Technology Agency and the Ministry of Education into a new Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) The new ministry controls around two thirds of government R&D expenditure The current R&D policy of the government is to double the amount of funding distributed as competitive research funds on the base of consecutives fiveyear periods Another idea in the reformed system of competitive funding is that researchers working in industry are also eligible for research grants The transition of the innovation system has been guided by three consecutive fiveyear periods “Basic Plans for S&T” The firs plan (1996-2000) focused on the implementation of new R&D systems particularly in universities The new systems increased competitive research funds, supported a plan to increase postdoctoral researchers, promoted industryacademia-government collaboration, and introduced third-party evaluations on universities The second plan (2001-2006), identified three basic principles and four prioritised areas for R&D The basic principles are creation of new knowledge, a new knowledge-based economy, and a knowledge-based society The four prioritised areas were life sciences, information and communications technology, environmental sciences, and nanotechnology (including material sciences) The current plan (2007-2011) focuses on two main issues: creating public support to R&D and gathering social benefits from it, and the emphasis on fostering human resources and competitive research environments (the shift of focus from “hard” to “soft” issues) (METI, 2007) As a complementary action, the government in coordination with academic and industrial representatives designed comprehensive roadmaps to aid the smooth implementation of the basic S&T plans, in medium and long-term strategies 2.4 The role of industry During the 1980s, Japanese corporations and industry sectors did largely benefit from the tacit knowledge embedded into their work and sales forces, and of an appropriate national managerial system in which the knowledge was interpreted (Motohashi, 2005; Whittaker, 2001) However, the benefit of an intense use of tacit knowledge probed to be insufficient to overcome the macro-economic crisis, hence firms and industries were compelled to efficiently create, incorporate and retain science-based knowledge (Whittaker, 2001) This event has notoriously influenced the history of collaboration between universities, firms and industries Nevertheless, Japanese firms still have a strong “in-house” R&D approach In general, collaboration between universities and firms has always existed in Japan, but its formalization – in the form of IPR policies – is a more recent event (Motohashi, 2005) However, it is not yet clear what has been the real effect of IPR policies as facilitator of new collaborations (Motohashi, 2006) Conversely, there is consensus about the important role of informal collaboration based on open-science mechanisms, particularly among SMS firms (Kodama and Suzuki, 2006) In the current governmental S&T strategy, the private sector plays an important role, principally in the strategic allocation and design of R&D efforts In this ambit, Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 public and private funding is supporting the revamp of domestic research production at basic and applied levels at an unprecedented rate During the last years, an also unprecedented number of formal collaborations between universities, research institutes and industries have been observed Some of these initiatives include venture business laboratories and spin-off companies The US Innovation System 3.1 Overview The US innovation system is often characterized as a structure with high mobility of human resources, strong competitiveness, high network capability of firms, strong venture capital and risk investment, university excellence and steady creation of spin-off firms This organizational form has ideally suited innovation in the information technology sector – the “silicon valley” model as the main example – but many of these characteristics are also seen in other sectors such as the biotech industry Seen as an example during the last decade, the US innovation system is now facing criticism about its real capability to increase and sustain innovation in a more globalized economy The economic slowdown in the US has motivated the development of a different innovation paradigm – as occurred in Japan – the prevalent concept is “innovation ecosystem” Figure (Annex I), shows the US framework to develop a National Innovation Ecosystem (Wessner, 2005; 2007) 3.2 The role of universities From a historical perspective, the role of universities in the US innovation system has been always of relevance (Hill, 2006; Hicks, 2006) The scientific production at US universities is by far the largest in the world, and its excellence is well known An important factor behind these achievements is the highly competitive funding system that enhances production and quality (Hill, 2006) Therefore, universities are compelled to excel their capability of attracting and keeping top students, faculty, and research staff and provide them with the highest quality management and infrastructure available (UNU-MERIT, 2007) The active and open competition for funding also encourages collaboration with industry, which not need to rely in strong in-house R&D investments as occurs in Japan On the other hand, the formalization of IPR mechanisms through the Bayh-Dole Act (See Footnote 1) has supported the creation of formal collaborations between industries and universities An important aspect to consider in the successful development of US universities is the fundamental role of foreign researchers and faculty staff as a source of knowledge creation and diversification (Hill, 2006) It has been indicated that collaborations between university and industry in the US presents both, an active-sender and active-receiver approach to innovation and technology transfer, while in Japan collaboration is often based on an activereceiver approach (Kodama, 2007) This means that in the US an innovative idea has greater chance to be transformed into a product or service 3.3 The role of government The role of US government in innovation is a permanent subject of discussion However, there is consensus that in a historic perspective the involvement of the government in the matter of innovation has notoriously increased In practical terms, the role of the US government is to create and sustain a favourable environment for innovation The environment for innovation is then shaped by policies concerning areas such as taxations, capital markets and intellectual property rights, and by regulations concerning market entry, labour standards, and bankruptcy (Fogarty et al., 2006) Policies and regulation defines the “risk-reward” ratio for aspirant entrepreneurs and private investors, conditioning their willingness to create a new firm The supportive nature of these policies is a defining feature of the US innovation system (Popper and Wagner, 2002) Another important aspect of this system is that government is not the main source of funding for basic research Funding sources are rather diverse, and public financing at early stages of research is less significant than the contribution of industrial and private donors The diversification of funding sources Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 not only enhances competitiveness, it also liberalizes innovation since more resources can be allocated in areas that not necessarily represent the interest of the government (Hill, 2006) An important initiative of the US government to encourage knowledge-based economic growth is the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), created in 1982 (Milbergs, 2004) The program allocates R&D budgets of different national agencies into small business in the base of three consecutives phases In Phase I, a feasibility study is allocated in order to establish the scientific and commercial value of the business idea (maximum grant of 100,000 USD) In Phase II, grants as high as 750,000 USD are assigned to further develop R&D activities Generally, a half of the awardees of Phase I pass to Phase II At the last stage, Phase III, SBIR funding is not granted but awardees obtain funding from other sources (private or publics) to move technologies to the prototyping stage, marketplace or government procurement The SBIR Program is very popular among firms since it does not compromise ownership and repayment is not required The government does not obtain royalties for intellectual property in most cases The benefits gathered from the program are significant for the national strategy to foster science-based innovation in areas of priority and help universities to reach marketplace Currently there are 11 national agencies involved in the program with a total investment of about billions USD a year 3.4 The role of industry As we mentioned before, collaboration between industry and university is a common practice in the US In this context, collaboration by the side of firms is mainly driven by precise R&D needs, hence this implies that the term of collaborations is rather shorter than in Japan where large companies usually looks to allocate R&D in universities for long-term projects, with low or even no relationship to their in-house R&D activities (National Science Board, 2008) Another characteristic is that the logistic of industries and their supply networks is very dynamic, therefore long-term relationship based on a high level trust are less frequent than those observed in Japan On the other hand, the US innovation environment encourages capital risk investment and companies and investors are less reluctant to take risk (Eurostat, 2008) This aspect of the US innovation system is a clear advantage over the Japanese one in which capital risk investment is yet low Discussion The dissimilar historical and cultural development of US and Japan had of course, shaped two innovations system with very particular characteristics However, in the course of recent history, both countries have acknowledged the need of learning from common success and failure, opening the way to an unprecedented level of bilateral cooperation in the field of innovation Accordingly, disparities observed between both innovation systems are nowadays, less evident than in the past The most recent consequence of this cooperation is the common adoption of the “innovation ecosystem” concept that stresses the dynamics of innovation and social and economic evolution This concept may be slightly different to the one of national innovation systems but it proposes and important condition that is, the understanding of economy as a national innovation ecosystem This approach helps to understand that a system is not static but dynamic, evolving according to needs and events, and that the system is susceptible to change as a response to policy initiatives The idea of ecosystems also helps to understand the mechanisms of interdependency and co-evolution, and how a national ecosystem can be linked to other ecosystems; therefore, the role of a nation, between nations in a global economy It is evident then, that by adopting this concept, both countries are trying to gain better understanding of their domestic innovation systems and therefore aiming a more efficient control over internal and external variables In this context, the understanding of historical developments in each of the agents involved in the innovation system becomes very important, as it could enable a more comprehensive base to implement new policies This last aspect is clearly depicted in Japan’s transition plan for the consolidation of a new innovation system, that demanded a major reform of the academic system and the public administration based on comprehensive and critic historical review of their performance In the US case, the creation of the SBIR Program Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 is an effective answer to the need of encouraging the development of small business as part of a science-based innovation strategy, a strategy that stresses the historic role of individual entrepreneurship in the precedent economic success of the country On the other hand, an important merit of innovations ecosystems is that social and environmental needs are considered as drivers and goals of innovation, thus broader benefits can be gathered in the long-term perspective Based on the analysis of the precedent chapters it is rather difficult to identify a single factor for the success of a given innovation system or of a part of it However, in the case of the “Knowledge triangle” that concerns the SUCCESS project, it seems to be that success is a sporadic event driven by cultural and social features For instance, in the Japanese system, collaboration between universities and industries has always existed, but in the preferred way of informal collaborations, such as open science This was the prevalent practice for decades, including the time in which the Japanese innovation system became an “international model” In contrast, the high level of formal cooperation between firms and universities in the US was already mature during the decades of economic success and economic slowdown Therefore, from this standpoint, the level of formality in collaborations seems to be irrelevant to the overall performance of an innovation system Another example can be gathered from the role of universities and government in the ambit of R&D policies In the former Japanese innovation system, the role of universities was weak while in-house R&D activities at large companies were encouraged and guided by the government This strategy was the base of economic success for Japan during the 1980s, but also it was one reason for the economic decline during the next decade In this context, the US innovation system encourages the role of universities as an engine of innovation, but this formula has not been enough to sustain competiveness beyond the year 2000 In fact, there is growing concern in the US about the social implications of sustaining such an elitist university model It seems then, that from a systemic perspective, models of collaboration are less relevant than the benefit implicit in the simple action of collaborating This benefit is the creation, diffusion, and absorption of knowledge as economic and social inputs/outputs within the innovation system An important lesson from the Japanese and US common experience is that any collaboration model – even a successful one – becomes rapidly obsolete in the core of a system that does not properly adapt to its surrounding environment Hence, adaptability is an important condition for collaborations but it is also a requirement for the system in which the collaboration takes place This is the capability of the system to respond efficiently to external changes, in other words, the capability to act as an innovation ecosystem Conclusions Japan and the US are undergoing major changes at different organizational levels in order to align their national systems of innovation with globalization and sustainability This process is becoming more evident in Japan, through a series of coordinated actions to guide the transition of the innovation system In both countries, the idea of globalization and sustainability has inspired the adoption of the “National Innovation Ecosystem” concept This common vision of innovation is the result of an unprecedented level of bilateral cooperation in the field, a political sign often interpreted as a move to merge both national innovation strategies As an important reflection from this analysis we consider that from a systemic perspective, models of collaboration are less relevant that the benefit implicit in the simple action of collaborating This is the constant creation, diffusion, and absorption of knowledge as economic and social inputs/outputs within an innovation system Availability and diversity of collaborations at any time and rate can bring then, the desirable consequence of synergy and the required systemic flexibility to enhance adaptability References Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 Arimoto T “Innovation Ecosystem in a New Era” International Conference on Science and Technology for Sustainability 2006: Global Innovation Ecosystems, Science Council of Japan, Tokyo, 2006 Etzkowitz H and Leydesdorff L “The dynamics of innovation: form National Systems and Mode to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relation” Journal of Research Policy, Elsevier (29) 109-123, 2000 Europe Innova “Socio-cultural determinants of eco-innovation” TECHNOPOLIS, 79 p 2008 Eurostat “Science, technology and innovation in Europe” Statistical Books, EC, Brussels, 2008 Fogarty M., Sinha A and Jaffe A “ATP and the U.S Innovation System: A Methodology for Identifying Enabling R&D Spillover Networks”, Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, US, Report, 90 p., October 2006 Galor O “From Stagnation to Growth: Unified Growth Theory” in: Handbook of Economic Growth, Aghion P and Durlauf S Editors, Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam pp 171-293, 2006 Goto A “Japan’s National Innovation System: Current Status and Problems”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, Vol (2): 103-113 pp., 2000 Hicks, D M., “A Broad Overview of the U.S Innovation System” In proceedings: International conference on Science and Technology for Sustainability 2006, Science Council of Japan, Tokyo, September 2006 Hill, K “Universities in the U.S National Innovation System” Productivity and Prosperity Project (P3), Arizona State University, Report, 28 p March 2006 Kodama F “How Japanese Companies have used Scientific Advances to Restructure their Businesses: The Receiver-Active National System of Innovation” In Journal of World Development, Ed Elsevier, Vol 35 (6) pp 976– 990, 2007 Kodama F and Suzuki J “Characterizing Receiver-Active National System of Innovation” RIETI Discussion Paper Series 06-E-013, RIETI, Japan, 37 p., 2006 Lundvall B (ed.) “National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning”, Pinter, London, 1992 Markard, J and B Truffer, Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework, Research Policy, vol.37, no.4, pag 596-615, 2008 METI “Long-term Strategic Guidelines “Innovation 25”, Government of Japan, English Translation, Tokyo, 99 p., June 1, 2007 Milbergs, E “Measuring Innovation for National Prosperity”, Innovation Framework Report, National Innovation Initiative IBM Corporation, US, 18 p January 2004 Motohashi K “Licensing or Not Licensing? Empirical Analysis on Strategic Use of Patent in Japanese Firms” RIETI Discussion Paper Series 06-E-021, RIETI, 15p., April 2006 Motohashi K “University–industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System” Journal of Research Policy, Ed Elsevier, Vol 34: 583–594 pp., 2005 National Science Board “Science and Engineering Indicators 2008” National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, Vol.1, 2008 OECD “The Knowledge-based Economy” OECD Publications, Paris 1996 OECD “National Innovation Systems” OECD Publications, Paris Cedex, 49p,1997 Popper S and Wagner C “New Foundations for Growth: The U.S Innovation System Today and Tomorrow” , January 2002, RAND Technology Policy Institute & National Science and Technology Council, Arlington, US, 198 p January 2002 Stanton D Hyeog K “The Restructuring of Japanese Research and Development: The increasing Imapct of Science on Japanese R&D” RIETI Discussion Paper Series 04-E-021, RIETI, Japan, 72 p., April 2004 UNU-MERIT “R&D collaboration networks in the European Framework Programmes: Data processing, network construction and selected results” United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology, Working Paper #2007-032, The Netherlands, 2007 Von Hippel, E “The Sources of Innovation” Oxford University Press, New York, 221 p 1988 Watanabe C and Fukuda K "National Innovation Ecosystem: The Similarity and Disparity of Japan-US Technology Policy Systems toward a Service Oriented Economy" Journal of Services Research Vol (1): 159-186 pp 2006 Wessner, C “Entrepreneurship and the Innovation Ecosystem: Policy Lessons from the United States” In series: Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Edited by Group on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, Max Planck Institute for Research into Economic Systems, Jena, Germany, Chapter 5, 24 p 2005 Wessner C “Innovation Policies for the 21st Century: Report of a Symposium” Committee on Comparative Innovation Policy: Best Practice for the 21st Century, Editor National Research Council, National Academy Press, ISBN 0-30910316-9, Washington, 223 p., 2007 Whittaker D H “Crisis and Innovation in Japan: A New Future through Technoentrepreneurship?” Working Paper No 193, ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 51 p., March 2001 Annex I Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 Figure The Japanese National Innovation Ecosystem (From Arimoto, 2006) Figure The US National Innovation Ecosystem (From Wessner, 2005) 10 ... of the gents takes the role of the other and hybrid and tri-lateral networks emerge at the Interfaces (Figure 1a) The Japanese System of Innovation Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US. .. the US case, the creation of the SBIR Program Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS WP1: 2008 is an effective answer to the need of. .. institutional environment – the system The properties of these interactions can be regarded as the Overview and Analysis of the Japanese and US Innovation Systems Sergio Jofre, DTU, Denmark SUCCESS