In the process of China′s striving for an innovative country, the National Middle- and Long-Term Plan for Science and Technology Development (2006-2020) plays a vital role, and in the plan "indigenous innovation" was proposed, which triggers a significant change in the national innovation system. Three types of institutional logics are concluded from the perspective of institutional logics, namely, academia logic, market logic and state logic. Conflicts aroused by the multiple logics within the main innovative actors in the national innovation system (including the universities and government research institutes, state-owned enterprises, private enterprises and foreign enterprises) are explored. By combining the logic compatibility and cost paying for achieving non-dominant logics′ requirements, the conflicts are divided into four types, namely no conflict, minimal conflict, moderate conflict, and extensive conflict. The causes leading to actors′ inefficient performance are analyzed subsequently. The findings show that under the guidance of the dominant logics, the innovative actors have achieved great success and the indigenous innovation capability of China is also improved significantly. However, the innovative outcomes in some areas still need to be improved when innovative actors facing logic conflicts. Under the academia logic, the universities and research institutes have promoted the development of basic science, which laid foundation of the improvement in China′s indigenous innovation capability. With the low compatibility between academia logic and market logic, as well as the low cost to meet the requirements of market logic, the conflict of the two logics within the universities and research institutes is moderate. The low compatibility between academia logic and state logic, and the low cost to meet the requirements of state logic also trigger moderate conflict in the universities and research institutes. As a result, the market transformation and application of their innovative outcomes still need to be improved. The private and foreign enterprises have invested much in the R&D activities and gained lots of innovative outcomes under the guidance of market logic. Some enterprises have ranked at the forefront in the world. However, the cooperation with universities and research institutes needs to be improved due to the minimal conflict resulting from high compatibility between market logic and academia logic, and the high cost when achieving the goals of academia logic. Besides, due to the low compatibility between market logic and state logic, and high cost to realize indigenous innovation, which is required by state logic, the conflict of the two logics is extensive. Thus, only few enterprises have achieved indigenous innovation. For the state-owned enterprises, under the guidance of state logic, significant breakthroughs have emerged in some sensitive and essential fields, which are related to the security of our country and interests of the whole society. Similar to the private and foreign enterprises, the conflict between state logic and academia logic is minimal, and the industry-university-research institute collaboration still needs to be enhanced. With the low compatibility between state logic and market logic, and the low cost of satisfying the needs of market logic, there emerges moderate conflict between these two logics, which lead to low efficiency and profitability of the enterprises.Finally, based on the analysis and according to the findings, this paper also provides possible paths to mitigate conflicts according to different positionings. Besides, this paper also provides some suggestions of constructing national innovation system and formulating policies.
Key words
indigenous innovation /
innovative actor /
institutional logic /
logic conflict /
implementation mechanism
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1]Fu X L, Gong Y D.Indigenous and foreign innovation efforts and drivers of technological upgrading: evidence from China[J].World development, 2011, 39(7):1213-1225
[2]Sj?holm F, Lundin N.Foreign Firms and Indigenous Technology Development in the People's Republic of China[J].Asian Development Review, 2013, 30(2):49-75
[3] 陈清泰.促进企业自主创新的政策思考[J].管理世界, 2006, 07:1-3-52
[4] Liu X L, Lundin N.Toward a market-based open innovation system of China[J].Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciencs, China, 2007, :-
[5] Serger S S, Breidne M.China’s fifteen-year plan for science and technology: An assessment [J]. asia policy, 2007(4): 135-164.
[6]Liu X L, Schwaag S S, Tagscherer U, et al.Beyond catch-up—can a new innovation policy help China overcome the middle income trap?[J].Science and Public Policy, 2017, 44(5):656-669
[7]Chen L, Naughton B.An institutionalized policy-making mechanism: China’s return to techno-industrial policy[J].Research Policy, 2016, 45(10):2138-2152
[8]Cao C, Suttmeier R P, Simon D F.China's 15-year science and technology plan[J].Physics today, 2006, 59(12):38-
[9] Bichler J, Schmidkonz C.The Chinese indigenous innovation system and its impact on foreign enterprises [J]. Munique, Munich Business School/University of Applied Sciences, 2012.
[10]曹聪, 李宁, 孙玉涛.中国中长期科技规划与自主创新战略[J].科学学研究, 2018, 36(12):2122-2124
[11] Friedland R, Alford R.Bringing Society back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. 1991, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[12]Llopis O, D’este P.Beneficiary contact and innovation: The relation between contact with patients and medical innovation under different institutional logics[J].Research Policy, 2016, 45(8):1512-1523
[13] Thornton P H, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M.The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. 2012, Oxford: Oxford University Press
[14]Venkataraman H, Vermeulen P, Raaijmakers A, et al.Market meets community: Institutional logics as strategic resources for development work[J].Organization Studies, 2016, 37(5):709-733
[15]Pache A C, Santos F.When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands[J].Academy of management review, 2010, 35(3):455-476
[16]Dunn M B, Jones C.Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education,1967–2005[J].Administrative science quarterly, 2010, 55(1):114-149
[17]Pache AC, Santos F.Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics[J].Academy of management journal, 2013, 56(4):972-1001
[18] Alford R R, Friedland R.Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. 1985, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19]Thornton P H, Ocasio W.Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry,1958–1990[J].American Journal of Sociology, 1999, 105(3):801-843
[20]Skelcher C, Smith S R.Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics,complex organizations,and actor identities: The case of nonprofits[J].Public Administration, 2015, 93(2):433-448
[21]Thomann E, Lieberherr E, Ingold K.Torn between state and market: Private policy implementation and conflicting institutional logics[J].Policy and Society, 2016, 35(1):57-69
[22]Meyer J W, Rowan B.Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony[J].American journal of sociology, 1977, 83(2):340-363
[23]Besharov M L, Smith W K.Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications[J].Academy of management review, 2014, 39(3):364-381
[24]Lee M-D P, Lounsbury M.Filtering institutional logics: Community logic variation and differential responses to the institutional complexity of toxic waste[J].Organization Science, 2015, 26(3):847-866
[25]Miller F A, French M.Organizing the entrepreneurial hospital: Hybridizing the logics of healthcare and innovation[J].Research Policy, 2016, 45(8):1534-1544
[26]Greve H R, Man Zhang C.Institutional logics and power sources: Merger and acquisition decisions[J].Academy of Management Journal, 2017, 60(2):671-694
[27] Smink M, Negro S O, Niesten E, et al.How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche–regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene[J].Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2015, 100:225-237
[28]Raynard M.Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and structural hybridity[J].Strategic Organization, 2016, 14(4):310-335
[29]Gümüsay A A, Smets M, Morris T.God at work”: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity[J].Academy of Management Journal, 2020, 63(1):124-154
[30]Intarakumnerd P, Chairatana P-a, Tangchitpiboon T.National innovation system in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand[J].Research policy, 2002, 31(8-9):1445-1457
[31]Furman J L, Porter M E, Stern S.The determinants of national innovative capacity[J].Research policy, 2002, 31(6):899-933
[32]Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L.The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations[J].Research policy, 2000, 29(2):109-123
[33]Greenwood R, Díaz A M, Li S X, et al.The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses[J].Organization science, 2010, 21(2):521-539
[34] Arrow K J.The economic implications of learning by doing, in Readings in the Theory of Growth [M]. 1971, Springer. p. 131-149.
[35]Berggren C, Karabag S F.Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control[J].Research Policy, 2019, 48(2):428-443
[36]刘勇, 黄劲松.高校技术成果转让的障碍研究[J].研究与发展管理, 2014, 26(03):129-134
[37] Villani E, Rasmussen E, Grimaldi R.How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach [J].Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2017, 114:86-102
[38]席酉民, 张晓军.从实践者视角看管理研究的价值和范式[J].管理学报, 2017, 14(03):335-338
[39] Zhang J J, Guan J C.The time-varying impacts of government incentives on innovation[J].Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2018, 135:132-144
[40] 苏敬勤.产学研合作创新的交易成本及内外部化条件[J].科研管理, 1999, 05:68-72
[41]丁雪辰, 柳卸林.创新生态系统战略对创业绩效的促进——基于中科院技术衍生企业的实证研究[J].管理评论, 2021, 33(01):120-132
[42]Roth K, O' donnell S.Foreign subsidiary compensation strategy: An agency theory perspective[J].Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(3):678-703
[43]Zhou K Z, Gao G Y, Zhao H.State ownership and firm innovation in China: An integrated view of institutional and efficiency logics[J].Administrative Science Quarterly, 2017, 62(2):375-404
[44]Wong S M, Opper S, Hu R.Shareholding structure,depoliticization and firm performance[J].Economics of Transition, 2004, 12(1):29-66
PDF(1486 KB)
