提高高新技术企业技术创新能力的对策研究

高新技术企业是属于知识聚集和技术密集的企业,提高企业自身技术创新能力是高新技术企业赢得竞争优势的关键,更是推动高新技术企业走向快速发展的必然途径。本文系统的分析了技术创新对高新技术企业的重要意义,从外部大环境和企业内部自身环境所存在的不足而导致高新技术企业技术创新过程所存在的问题进行了客观的分析,列举了外部环境和内部环境在高新技术企业中所出现的具体问题,同时针对不同的问题提出了相应的解决对策并作出了有益的探讨,为高新技术企业技术创新的研究提供一定的理论研究,为高新技术企业走向高级化发展提供了借鉴经验。     

技术创新促进经济增长的动力研究

根据经济增长理论及影响变化因素,结合我国经济发展实际,本文论证了技术创新促进经济增长的不同模式,提出了发展中国家促进技术创新发展的框架,技术创新是企业发展的根本动力。提高区域经济的增长速度和转变经济增长的方式是发展中国家的必由之路。在区域经济视角下研究影响企业技术创新的因素,通过政府和企业联动改善这些因素作用的效率,非常必要。论文首先根据技术创新理论,分析了不同层面的企业技术创新发展的影响因素。最后提出了区域经济视角下提高企业技术创新能力的对策,强调了政府、企业在技术创新中的不同作用。     

Technology evaluation in Taiwan's technology industries: Strategies, trajectories, and innovations

Technology evaluation, as an organizational process, is the essential ability to comprehend the values of technologies very soon after they emerge. Meanwhile, the technology evaluation process is inevitably influenced by the firm's industrial context, such as its technological trajectory. This study defines technology evaluation strategy in terms of the processes, methods, and participants involved, and uses this definition as a taxonomy to explore different types of technology evaluation strategies. A survey on the technological industries is conducted to explore types of technology evaluation strategies and their relationships with the advantages of different types of innovation under the effects of different technological trajectories. The survey identifies four types of technology evaluation strategies, namely, those of the flexible executive strategist, the emergent executive intuitionist, the deliberate quantitative strategist, and the deliberate consensual strategist, are identified. This study has found that certain types of technology evaluation strategies have better innovation performances than the others. The patterns of technological trajectories are also found to influence a firm's technology evaluation strategy and the advantages of certain types of innovations. The established explanations of the relationships among the technological trajectory, innovation type, and technology evaluation strategies may guide technology businesses to develop a better technology evaluation capability. The theoretical framework developed in this research enriches the strategic management literature with a new taxonomy for technology evaluation strategies.     

自主创新实现方式比较及其路径演化分析

从产品技术层面提出一个自主创新的综合分析框架,对5种不同的自主创新方式进行明确的界定和深入的比较。以此为基础,通过我国自主创新成功企业的案例分析,研究技术追赶者和新技术开创者这两类不同企业的创新路径,并对不同路径的演化规律及彼此之间的联系进行分析,从而为企业自主创新战略的选择提供参考依据。     

Does Technological Innovation Really Reduce Marginal Abatement Costs? Some Theory,Algebraic Evidence,and Policy Implications

The existing literature models innovation in pollution control as a reduction in marginal abatement costs. We show that this assumption is inappropriate for production process innovations such as fuel switching. Algebraically, we examine the effects of different innovation types on marginal abatement cost curves, showing that some desirable innovations increase marginal abatement costs. Empirically, we estimate marginal abatement costs for sulfur dioxide by measuring the output distance function for electric power in Korea. Regression results confirm that production process innovations did raise marginal abatement costs in this case. One policy implication: economic instruments do not always provide stronger innovation incentives than command-and-control policies.      

Vertical Innovation and Catching-Up: Implications of EU Integration for CEECs-5

We analyze the role of vertical innovation in trade patterns for developing economies trading with technologically advanced countries. A model is presented where the international diffusion of knowledge, promoted by economic integration, is the source of a technological catching up and leads to a convergence in the quality of traded goods, with a positive effect on exports. We then turn our attention on the evolution of trade between the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs-5) and their European Union partner countries, assessing whether economic integration has increase the quality of the goods produced. For the period 1995–2005, we find evidence of the increasing role of intra-industry trade and vertical differentiation and a process of specialization in higher quality products, especially in the medium- and high-skill sectors.

Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A sensitivity analysis

Krusell et al. in [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] analyzed the capital–skill complementarity hypothesis as an explanation for the behavior of the US skill premium. We refit Krusell et al.'s [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] model with two alternative capital equipment price series: One proposed by Greenwood et al. [Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z., Krusell, P., 1997. Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. Amer. Econ. Rev. 87 (3), 342–362] and the official, revised National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data. We find that capital–skill complementarity is preserved, but other results were sensitive to the data used. Specifically, the fit of the model was similar to Krusell et al.'s [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] using the NIPA data, but not the Greenwood et al. [Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z., Krusell, P., 1997. Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. Amer. Econ. Rev. 87 (3), 342–362] data. Also, both series produce estimates of the elasticity of substitution between unskilled labor and equipment that are substantially larger than Krusell et al.'s [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] estimates.     

On using relative prices to measure capital-specific technological progress

Recently, Greenwood, Hercowitz and Krusell (GHK) have identified the relative price of (new) capital with capital-specific technological progress. In a two-sector growth model, however, the relative price of capital equals the ratio of the productivity processes in the two sectors. Restrictions from this model are used with data on wages and prices to construct measures of productivity growth and test the GHK identification, which is easily rejected by the data. This raises questions about various measures of the contribution that capital-specific technological progress might make to the economy. This identification also induces a negative correlation between the resulting measures of capital-specific and economy-wide technological change, which potentially explains why papers employing this identification find that capital-specific technological change accelerated in the mid-1970s. We impose structure on the productivity measures based on their long-run behavior and find evidence of a slowdown in productivity in the 1970s that is common to both sectors and an acceleration in the mid-1990s that is exclusive to the capital sector.     

A functional approach for studying technological progress: Extension to energy technology

This paper extends a broad functional category approach for the study of technological capability progress recently developed and applied to information technology to a second key case—that of energy based technologies. The approach is applied to the same three functional operations—storage, transportation and transformation—that were used for information technology by first building a 100 plus year database for each of the three energy-based functional categories. In agreement with the results for information technology in the first paper, the energy technology results indicate that the functional approach offers a stable methodology for assessing longer time technological progress trends. Moreover, similar to what was found with information technology in the first study, the functional capability for energy technology shows continual—if not continuous—improvement that is best quantitatively described as exponential with respect to time. The absence of capability discontinuities—even with large technology displacement—and the lack of clear saturation effects are found with energy as it was with information. However, some key differences between energy and information technology are seen and these include:

?

Lower rates of progress for energy technology over the entire period: 19-37% annually for Information Technology and 3-13% for Energy Technology.

?

Substantial variability of progress rates is found within given functional categories for energy compared to relatively small variation within any one category for information technology. The strongest variation is found among capability progress among different energy types.

?

More challenging data recovery and metric definition for energy as compared to information technology.

These findings are interpreted in terms of fundamental differences between energy and information including the losses and efficiency constraints on energy. We apply Whitney's insight that these fundamental differences lead to naturally modular information technology artifacts. The higher progress rates of information-based as opposed to energy-based technologies follows since decomposable systems can progress more rapidly due to the greater ease of independent as opposed to simultaneous development. In addition, the broad implications of our findings to studies of the relationships between technical and social change are briefly discussed.     

Technological diversification, complementary assets, and performance

Most research on technological diversification or complementary assets has been carried out in isolation when assessing their effects on performance. In this study, we posit that technological diversification and performance are positively linked and that specialized complementary assets have a moderating effect on this relationship. This study also finds that different specialized complementary assets have distinctive moderating effects on the relationship between technological diversification and performance. We conclude that maintaining a coherent relationship between technological diversification and specialized complementary assets give firms generates competitive advantage.