Upload
milo-martin
View
219
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
The innovation system in the telecommunications sector
A comparative approach: France – South Korea
David Flacher, Cédric Durand, Romain LestageParis 13 University
CEPN (CNRS UMR 7115)
2
Main issue
Is the French institutional context favorable to telecommunications industry and IT development ?
The dynamics of innovation can be explained by many characteristics of the environment such as: Institutions including
Routines, conventions, rules, types of governance More « established » institutions, organisations…
National and international context History (and thus technological path)
3
Content of the presentation
1) Stylized facts: divergences in terms of performances between Korean and French ICT sectors
2) Can these stylized facts be explained by the trajectories of the National System of Innovation (NSI)?
3) Do the French and Korean NSI fit well fit well for the development of the telecommunications and IT sectors?
4) Conclusions et perspectives
4
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts
1st stylized fact Infrastructures and usages are more developed in Korea than in
France Exemple: Broadband subscription in 2006 (OECD)
5
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts Broadband subscription on mobile phone in 2005
6
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts
Web 2.0 (blogs by languages in OECD countries in 2006)
E-government…
7
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts
2nd stylized fact Innovation (particularly hardware innovation) is more dynamic in the
Korean telecommunications sector
Exemples Patent registrations
Triadic patent families (OECD)
• Parallel patent applications in the USA (USPTO), EU (OEB) and Japan (JPO) patents offices
• Induces a selection of the main innovations in order to lower the bias due to national applications
8
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts
Innovation is more oriented towards ICT in Korea
9
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts
3rd stylized fact Equipment manufacturers are at the core of the Korean ICT strategy
Exemples Share of ICT manufacturing in the total value added of manufacturing
sectors (OCDE, 2008)
10
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts Strong and improving position of Korea in ICT
international trade
11
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts
4th Stylized fact France appears to be in a better
position for services
(with the exceptions of games, mobile TV and e-payment)
(Lee & Chan-Olmested, 2004)
12
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts
Services exportations (OCDE, 2007) :
147Software
195Communications services
3011Computer and information services
KoreaFranceRank
13
1- Divergence between France and Korea : stylized facts
In short Opposite paths in France and Korea in the 1990’s
France position becomes weaker in the international competition In the ICT manufacturing sector In the associated innovation In ICT exportation
Rapid improvement of Korea’s position in the same fields and in the diffusion of usages
This suggests that there is a cumulative relation between on the one hand manufacturing development and, on the other hand, infrastructures deployment, innovation and the diffusion of new usages(it also suggests that services do not necessarily play a central role).
To what extent divergence between the trajectories of French and Korean National Systems of Innovation could explain such divergent paths?
14
2- National systems of innovation trajectories as an explanation
Three historical periods After world war II
State-led Innovation System (IS) in France and in Korea
Since the 1980’s Divergent IS paths in a context of economic
liberalization
Since the end of the 1990’s Reconfiguration of IS in a context of liberalization of
the telecommunications industry
15
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
16
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Identification of strategic sectors and “Grand Projets”
Coordination mixing private/public entities: Public banks, planning
commission, incentives (loans, subventions, public orders, supports for exportations…)
Grandes écoles (with high level of selection)/Universities strong public/business
networks based on a common educational background of the elite
CNRS (basic research) / Specific labs for applied research (CNET, CEA, CNES)
Outcome Constitution of world-class national
champions; Building of significant technological
advantages for the country as a whole.
17
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Autonomy (technological take off, substitution of importation), employment and growth
Method Promotion of exportation and
limitation of importations Big family owned firms (chaebols) but
depending from the State Massive investment in
Primary and secundary education (in the 1950’s and 1960’s)
Resarchers education (in the 1970’s) through the creation of national institutes
Technological catch up (but not yet innovation driven system) Reverse engineering, partnerships
(USA), specific equipments Applied research for the development
of local solutions (substitution) Restriction of FDI Independent
management and push Korean firms to develop their own techniques.
Outcomes Rapid industrialization (through assimilation of
foreign technological capabilities) First generation of high profile researchers and
engineers
18
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Advantages Long term investments Significant outcomes (in sectors like railway, airspace, electricity,
telecommunications…)
Limits Anticipation of changes is more difficult since the elite (in France) and
the chaebols (in Korea) are not specialized enough SME are not really taken into account The system does not fit well with bottom-up innovation
Small scale, flexible and decentralized types of innovation and of innovative firms
19
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Second period: since the 1980’s
In France Dislocation of the IS which implies
State has lower control on the big firms R&D public expenditure turns down (and public institution de-
specialization) Interruption of the main industrial programs Development of European policies (and of the EU market)
Economic situation: Development of finance-led capitalism (relying on market funding and on
shareholder value maximization) Liberalization, privatization et internationalisation of firms ownership Slowing down economic growth
20
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
In Korea, since the 1980’s R&D is getting more and more self-governed by firms (in a
context of economic growth) Firms expenditure for R&D is growing fastly Creation of research labs networks (including foreign labs) and reverse
brain drain of Korean researchers previously installed abroad
Institutional evolution adequate to changing strategy From learning and catching up approach … to technological accumulation and innovation
State remains active and voluntarist Public funding and fiscal incentives for the firms Important R&D public programs at the technological frontier Growing public expenditure for higher education Public institutes
Concerning R&D strategic fields (both basic and applied resarch) Working with private firms (ETRI…)
21
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Main outcomes: R&D expenditures (as a share of GDP) (OECD, 2008)
22
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Patent applications (OECD, 2008)
23
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
R&D public expenditure (as a share of GDP) (OECD, 2008) :
importance of military expenditure (mainly nuclear ones) in France
24
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Third period: since the middle of the 1990’s
In France Deep transformation of the IS
From a vertical (i.e. sectoral) to an horizontal approach Towards a regional (territorial) approach From top-down to bottom-up approach
In Korea IS more and more driven by private firms Reconfiguration of ministries.
Funding research more and more through projects rather than through lump-sum system
Creation of « research councils »in charge of planning, funding and assessing public labs
Creation of technological regional clusters
25
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Advantages of a de-verticalized and territory-oriented approach: Fits better with applied research and patent applications Fits better with small and/or decentralized innovations
Limits Research leading to short term profitability is privileged reduction of public researcher's autonomy => restraint for
creativity and initiative Constraints due to « Project » organization (administrative tasks…) Low public expenditure (in terms of jobs and lump-sum financing)
Possible State initiatives are more limited
26
2- National systems of innovation as an explanation
Summarizing Strong divergent paths between French and Korean
IS… France
Stagnation of R&D effort dramatic reduction of state-led intervention in technological
development Korea
Growing efforts and initiatives in terms of R&D Shift from Learning System towards Innovating System
(defining strategic fields of intervention)
… even if common trends can be pointed out Liberalization and growing space for private initiatives R&D more and more oriented towards shorter term
applications but Korea is resisting better to those trends
27
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
general context since the mid-nineties Liberalization of the telecommunications industry Strong ICT growth
In brief The Korean IS is quite consistent… … while French IS is characterized by a « multi-sided
institutional dualism »
28
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
In Korea Fostering competition… … but competition is consistent with innovation and
industrial policies No independent regulator of the telecommunications industry
KCC depends on the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) and will be merged with KBC (in charge of contents)
Governmental agencies (depending on MIC) implement political priorities: Defining policies (KISDI). Organizing public/private R&D partnerships (ETRI) Managing and financing innovation (IITA)
29
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications Strategic and important orientation defined by the State
For the operators: Promotion of facility-based competition (this policy was helped by the
high density of the population)
« no » unbundling of the new infrastructures Infrastructure : allows technological differentiation Unbundling only on previous generation infrastructure in order to
push competitors to adopt new techniques For equipment manufacturers
Limitation of FDI during a large period Public investments, support for « national champions », incentives to
develop ICT manufacturing sectors (See the exemple of WCDMA et CDMA 2000 licensing)
Development of local standards in order to protect the national market
30
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
31
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
Exemples of programs KII (started in 1995, already ended)
IT 839 : 8 services, 3 infrastructures et 9 technologies (in progress) Large ICT education programs, research…
Aims Higher GDP per capita Employment Position Korea on strategic fields (for international competition)
32
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
In France Multi-sided institutional “dualism” between
a) institutions in charge of competition and institutions in charge of innovation b) national and european institutions c) even between contents and telecoms regulations
a) In the mid-nineties: liberalization of the industry France Télécom (DGT) is loosing its position at the top of an « industrial
hierarchy »With its own advanced research center (CNET) and stong partnerships with
equipment players (Alcatel et Thomson), research centers and « universities »
Creation of an independent NRAwith the main goal of developing competition(considered as the way to improve efficiency)
This independant NRA may induce counterproductive effects on innovation and thus dynamic efficiciency. Why ?
33
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
Specificities of sectoral regulation in France
Asymmetrical regulation in order to favor the entrance and the development of FT competitors
Three ideas FT retail prices should be too low ( prevent « squeezing ») Wholesale prices not to high (cost oriented and non discriminatory
prices)( resale of FT services and development of competitors market shares)
Favoring « ladders of investment » climbing for competitors Progressive replication of networks Tools: bitstream access, unbundling…
Asymmetrical regulation should then disappear (and should be replaced by the only application of competition law)
34
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
Main outcomes Lower incentives to invest
Into new infrastructures For the incumbent (which value option “invest” into new techniques
is reduced by the possible unbundling of its NGN) For the competitors (unbundling can be a better solution than
investing)
Into R&D Reduction and transformation of R&D effort by operators (FT)…
Lower effort: From 3.5% of the revenue in 1997 to 1% in 2003 (according to OECD)
R&D more oriented on short term applied projects and services equipment manufacturers are realizing a part of R&D previously
realized by FT but equipment manufacturers R&D and public R&D spending do
not compensate the lower efforts of FT
35
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
The two other important institutional dualisms
b) between national and european institutions
This is true both in terms of Pro-competitive sector specific regulation Innovation policies
Sprinkling european fundings dedicated to R&D No clear industrial strategy at the EU level (public orders, national
specializations…)
c) between contents and telecoms regulations Digital dividend and convergence in the ICT ecosystem should
induce more coordination
36
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
While in Korea… Sector specific institutions are all depending on the ministry (MIC)
(which can coordinate competition and innovation oriented policies)
Able to gather stakeholders around a common strategic vision
The priorities are implemented through coherent incentives to innovate and to invest with a medium-long term perspective(with the risk of an excess of investment?)
This vision gathers a top-down and a bottom-up approach thanks to MIC coordination This support from MIC to innovation can get the upper hand on pro-
competitive policies. Conversely, pro-competitive policies are mainly guided by innovation
and investment logics.
37
4- Conclusions et perspectives Divergent paths in terms of performances between countries
Looking for explanations in the institutional arrangements (at national and sectoral levels) Institutional consistency in Korea Multi-sided institutional dualisms in France
competition/innovation France/UE Telecommunications/content…
In France, these institutional dualism reinforce the negative effects that results from the change in the governance of the IS (de-verticalization and
bottom-up approaches)
38
4- Conclusions et perspectives
The regulator should thus take more into account innovation problems instead of
only fostering effective competition understand that fostering competition is one of many other tools be in charge of an industrial and innovation policy (which is not
the case for the moment)
In France, the regulator (ARCEP) seems to be more and more interested by investment and innovation but…
40
3- Innovation systems: ICT and telecommunications
ETRI fields of interest