政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/152640

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/152640

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文笔数/总笔数 : 113325/144300 (79%)
造访人次 : 51154238 在线人数 : 878

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜寻范围

查询小技巧：

您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果

若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据

进阶搜寻

主页 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上传 ‧ 说明 ‧ 关于政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手机版

政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/152640

请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152640

题名:	科技創新政策體制、國家吸收能耐與國家創新成效之探索性研究 An Explorative Study on STI Policy Regimes, National Absorptive Capacity, and National Innovation Performance
作者:	黃宏吉 Huang, Hong-Ji
贡献者:	吳豐祥 Wu, Feng-Shang 黃宏吉 Huang, Hong-Ji
关键词:	民主型科技創新政策體制才能型科技創新政策體制潛在性國家吸收能耐實現性國家吸收能耐探索性創新應用性創新國家創新系統 democratic STI policy regime meritocratic STI policy regime potential national absorptive capacity realized national absorptive capacity exploratory innovation exploitative innovation national systems of innovation
日期:	2024
上传时间:	2024-08-05 13:03:48 (UTC+8)
摘要:	創新(innovation)不論是對於國家的持續發展或是企業的成長，都扮演了極為關鍵的角色。而創新的研究則涵蓋了公共政策、產業發展與企業策略等領域，主要在探討特定的個人、企業、機構、區域與國家為何有比較好的創新表現。在國家創新的層次上，相關的學者主要採取「系統性取向」(systematic approach)來探討，主流理論包括以「制度」(institutions)為核心概念的「國家創新系統」(National Systems of Innovation, NSI)理論與兩個分支模型：「三重螺旋模型」(The Triple-Helix model)與「國家創新能耐」(National Innovative Capacity, NIC)。雖然這三大領域已經被研究了很長一段時間，但是卻仍存在幾個方面的不足之處。包括：(1)主流理論缺乏一個科技創新政策的結構面模型；(2)過度強調制度的角色而忽略政策次系統與治理機制；與(3)未能將國家視為一個由學習者與知識活動組成的學習系統。基於上述研究缺口，本研究試圖回答下列的研究問題：國家在何種結構層面與行為層面條件下可以有更好的創新表現？本研究提出一個包含五個基本假設的理論模型，來檢視國家的「科技創新政策體制」(STI policy regime)與「國家吸收能耐」(national absorptive capacity, NAC)如何影響它在「探索性創新」(exploratory innovation)與「應用性創新」(exploitative innovation)的表現。此處的科技創新政策體制包括「民主型科技創新政策體制」(democratic STI policy regime)與「才能型科技創新政策體制」(meritocratic STI policy regime)兩種，本研究分別探討其對探索性創新與應用性創新所產生的正面影響。國家吸收能耐則包括「潛在性國家吸收能耐」(potential national absorptive capacity, PNAC)與「實現性國家吸收能耐」(realized national absorptive capacity, RNAC)兩種，前者正面調節民主型科技創新政策體制對探索性創新的正面影響，後者則正面調節才能型科技創新政策體制對應用性創新的正面影響。為測試上述的理論模型，本研究以38個OECD國家為樣本資料，以知名國際組織編製的相關指標來操作化因變數、解釋變數、調節變數與控制變數，並以五個統計方程式來對應五個基本假設，先據以進行固定效應統計分析(fixed-effects panel regression)，接著再以隨機效應統計分析(random-effects panel regression)、Hausman檢定、變異數膨脹因子(variance inflation factors)等進行穩健性測試，最後得到支持上述理論模型的分析結果。傳統的創新理論強調研發投資、創新基礎設施、以及創新者友善環境等因素對國家創新的重要性。本研究則認為政策體制與知識能耐同樣有其重要性，並結合此兩者以更廣袤的理論圖像來解釋國家在創新表現上的差異，因此本研究亦對於創新理論的延伸上有所貢獻。本研究所得到的結果意味著：國家應建立二元科技創新政策體制(民主型與才能型)、培養二元吸收能耐(潛在性與實現性)，如此才能精於二元創新(探索性與應用性)。 Innovation studies as an emerging scientific field have come into prominent spotlight in various research areas such as public policies, industrial development, and corporate strategies. Despite all the differences in scopes and levels of analysis, innovation studies seek to unravel the puzzle of why some individuals, firms, institutes, regions, and nations are better innovators. Scholars in innovation studies mainly adopt a systematic approach to unravel the national innovation puzzle. The theory of national systems of innovation (NSI), along with its two extended models (the Triple-Helix model and National Innovative Capacity, NIC), mainly look into the institutional contexts in which innovative actors and innovating activities are embedded in. However, the existing theories lack a structural model of how cross-national STI (science, technology, and innovation) policies shape innovation processes. They overemphasize the role of institutions that do not fit well into policy subsystems controlled by governing arrangements. Moreover, they do not fully recognize a country as a whole constitutes the “national learning system” composed of knowledgeable learners and knowledge activities. Given all these research gaps, this dissertation seeks to answer the core research question regarding the structural and behavioral conditions that enable a country to innovate better. A conceptual model is conceived to examine the interactive dynamics of a country’s dual-regime structure in STI policies, dual-capacity in knowledge absorption, and the innovation outputs in exploration and exploitation. The dual-regime policy structure is mainly composed of democracy and meritocracy, each of which goes through different channels to enhance exploratory and exploitative innovation. The dual-capacity in knowledge absorption is mainly composed of a country’s absorptive capacity that carries potential and realized dimensions. This dual-capacity interacts with the dual-regime policy structure to further vitalize the latter’s effects on exploratory and exploitative innovation. To test the conceptual model, this dissertation collects panel data on thirty-eight OECD countries from 2010-2022. All the dependent, explanatory, moderating, and control variables are operationalized with relevant indices regularly compiled by trustworthy international organizations. This dissertation further establishes five statistical equations, each of which corresponds to a principal hypothesis. The conceptual model is solidly supported with fixed-effects panel regression on the sample data. Moreover, post-hoc analysis, including random-effects panel regression, the Hausman test, country-level scatter plots, and variance inflation factors, confirms the validity of the research methodology. Existing innovation theories argue that for the purpose of enhancing innovation, a country should commit to R&D investments, set up proper institutions, and foster an innovator-friendly environment. The major contribution of this dissertation is integrating structural and behavioral perspectives to depict a more panoramic picture on what should a country do to become a more accomplished innovator. With the appropriate STI policy structure and knowledge capacity well-established, a country faces no tradeoff nor the need to balance between exploration and exploitation. An ambidextrous STI policy structure, equipped with an ambidextrous knowledge agency, enables and empowers a country to be ambidextrous in innovation.
參考文獻:	REFERENCES Acar, O. A., Tuncdogan, A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Collective creativity and innovation: An interdisciplinary review, integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 50(6), 2119-2151. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231212416 Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2005). Unbundling institutions. Journal of Political Economy, 113(5), 949-995. https://doi.org/10.1086/432166 Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451 Agan, B., & Balcilar, M. (2022). On the determinants of green technology diffusion: An empirical analysis of economic, social, political, and environmental factors. Sustainability, 14(4), 2008. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042008 Akinluyi E. A., Stell, D., Perera, N., & Sibley-Allen C. (2021). Developing the COVID-19 intensive care medical equipment distribution platform: Outcomes and lessons learned. BMJ Open Quality. Apr;10(2):e001383. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001383 Albort-Morant, G., Henseler, J., Cepeda-Carrión, G., & Leal-Rodríguez, A. L. (2018). Potential and realized absorptive capacity as complementary drivers of green product and process innovation performance. Sustainability, 10, 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020381 Algarni, M. A., Ali, M., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & Albort-Morant, G. (2023). The differential effects of potential and realized absorptive capacity on imitation and innovation strategies, and its impact on sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113674 Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Little Brown. Alves, M. F. R., & Galina, S. V. R. (2021). Measuring dynamic absorptive capacity in national innovation surveys. Management Decision, 59(2), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2019-0560 Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406 Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Archibugi, D., & Iammarino, S. (1999). The policy implications of the globalisation of innovation. Research Policy, 28(2-3), 317-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00116-4 Arora, A., Belenzon, S., & Patacconi, A. (2019). A theory of the US innovation ecosystem: Evolution and the social value of diversity. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(2), 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty067 Auld, G., Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., & Levin, K. (2021). Managing pandemics as super wicked problems: Lessons from, and for, COVID-19 and the climate crisis. Policy Sciences, 54(4), 707-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09442-2 Azagra-Caro, J. M., Archontakis, F., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Fernández-de-Lucio, I. (2006). Faculty support for the objectives of university-industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 35(1), 37-55. Balakrishnan, S., & Fox, I. (1993). Asset specificity, firm heterogeneity and capital structure. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140103 Baldwin, C. Y., Bogers, M. L. A. M., Kapoor, R., & West, J. (2024). Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies. Research Policy, 53(3), 104949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104949 Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106 Bang, H., Jensen, M. D., & Nedergaard, P. (2015). ‘We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: The debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union. Policy Studies, 36(2), 196-216. http://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-82. http://doi.org/ 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173 Bartoloni, S., Calò, E., Marinelli, L., Pascucci, F., Dezi, L., Carayannis, E., Revel, G. M., & Gregori, G. L. (2022). Towards designing society 5.0 solutions: The new quintuple helix-Design thinking approach to technology. Technovation, 113, 102413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102413 Băzăvan, A. (2019). Chinese government’s shifting role in the national innovation system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119738 Bell, D. (1972). On meritocracy and equality. Public Interest, 29, 29-68. Bell, D. A. (2015). The China model: Political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton University Press. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040711 Berwick, E., & Christia, F. (2018). State capacity redux: Integrating classical and experimental contributions to an enduring debate. Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072215-012907 Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C.B. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47-55. Bonhomme, S., & Manresa, E. (2015). Grouped patterns of heterogeneity in panel data. Econometrica, 83(3), 1147-1184. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta11319 Boon, W., Edler, J. (2018). Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy014 Borrás S., & Edquist C. (2019). Holistic innovation policy: Theoretical foundations, policy problems, and instrument choices. Oxford University Press. Borrás, S., & Laatsit, M. (2019). Towards system oriented innovation policy evaluation? Evidence from EU28 member states. Research Policy, 48(1), 312-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.020 Brem, A.,Viardot, E., & Nylund, P. A. (2021). Implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak for innovation: Which technologies will improve our lives? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120451 Breznitz, D., & Ornston, D. (2013). The revolutionary power of peripheral agencies: Explaining radical policy innovation in Finland and Israel. Comparative Political Studies, 46(10), 1219-1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012472466 Breznitz, D., Ornston, D., & Samford, S. (2018), Mission critical: The ends, means, and design of innovation agencies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 883-896. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty027 Buchanan, A., Cole, T., & Keohane, R. O. (2011). Justice in the diffusion of innovation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 19(3), 306-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00348.x Bührer, S., Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., Palmén, R., & Reidl, S. (2020). Evaluating gender equality effects in research and innovation systems. Scientometrics, 125, 1459-1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03596-1 Burcharth, A.L.D.A., Lettl, C., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2015). Extending organizational antecedents of absorptive capacity: Organizational characteristics that encourage experimentation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 269-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.024 Cai, Y., & Lattu, A. (2022). Triple helix or quadruple helix: Which model of innovation to choose for empirical studies? Minerva, 60(2), 257-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09453-6 Calderini, M., Fia, M., & Gerli, F. (2023). Organizing for transformative innovation policies: The role of social enterprises. Theoretical insights and evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 52(7), 104818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104818 Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426 Caragliu, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). The impact of regional absorptive capacity on spatial knowledge spillovers: The Cohen and Levinthal model revisited. Applied Economics, 44(11), 1363-1374. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D.F.J., Meissner, D. & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12300 Carayannis, E .G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2021). Democracy of climate and climate for democracy: The evolution of quadruple and quintuple helix innovation systems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12, 2050–2082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00778-x Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F .J., & Grigoroudis, E. (2021). Democracy and the environment: How political freedom is linked with environmental sustainability. Sustainability, 13, 5522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105522 Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00138-x Carlsson, B. (2006). Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35(1), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.003 Castellacci, F., & Natera, J. M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), 579-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.006 Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Pachón J. R. C., & Cegarra J. L. M. (2012). E-government and citizen's engagement with local affairs through e-websites: The case of Spanish municipalities. International Journal of Information Management, 32(5), 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.02.008 Ceptureanu, S. I., Ceptureanu, E. G., & Cerqueti, R. (2022). Innovation ambidexterity and impact on the performance in IT companies: The moderating role of business experience. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(7), 746-759. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1918337 Cevallos, R. A. & Moreno, C. M. (2020). National policy councils for science, technology, and innovation: A scheme for structural definition and implementation. Science and Public Policy, 47(5), 705-718. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa052 Chang, C.-H., Chen, Y.-S., & Lin, M.-J.J. (2014). Determinants of absorptive capacity. R&D Management, 44(5), 466-483. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12086 Chang, C.-Y., Chang, Y.-Y., Tsao, Y.-C., & Kraus, S. (2022). The power of knowledge management: How top management team bricolage boosts ambidexterity and performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(11), 188-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2021-0753 Chen, H-T. (1996). A comprehensive typology for program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409601700204 Chen, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-L., & Chu, P. Y. (2013). Facilitators of national innovation policy in a SME-dominated country: A case study of Taiwan. Innovation, 15(4), 405-415. http://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2013.15.4.405 Choi, S.-K., Han, S., & Kwak, K.-T (2021). Innovation capabilities and the performance of start-ups in Korea: The role of government support policies. Sustainability, 13, 6009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116009 Christofi, M., Stylianou, I., Hadjielias, E., De Massis, A., & Kastanakis, M. N. (2023). Tackling pandemic-related health grand challenges: The role of organizational ambidexterity, social equality, and innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12662 Cloitre, A., Dos Santos Paulino, V., & Theodoraki, C. (2023). The quadruple/quintuple helix model in entrepreneurial ecosystems: An institutional perspective on the space case study. R&D Management, 53(4), 675-694. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12547 Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553 Cooke, P. (2010). Regional innovation systems: Development opportunities from the ‘Green Turn’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(7), 831-844. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2010.511156 Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582-600. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082975 Crescenzi, R., & Gagliardi, L. (2018). The innovative performance of firms in heterogeneous environments: The interplay between external knowledge and internal absorptive capacities. Research Policy, 47(4), 782-795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.006 Crespo, N. F., & Crespo, C. F. (2016). Global innovation index: Moving beyond the absolute value of ranking with a fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5265-5271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.123 Criscuolo, P., & Narula, R. (2008). A novel approach to national technological accumulation and absorptive capacity: Aggregating Cohen and Levinthal. European Journal of Development Research, 20(1), 56-73. http://doi.org/10.1080/09578810701853181 Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202135 Dahl, R. A. (1998). On Democracy. Yale University Press. Dahlman, C., & Nelson, R. (1995). Social absorption capability, national innovation systems and economic development. In D.H. Perkins and B.H. Koo (Eds.), Social capability and long-term growth (pp. 82-122). Macmillan Press. Daniels, N. (1978). Merit and Meritocracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 7(3), 206-223. David, P. A., Hall, B. H., & Toole, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 497-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00087-6 De Bakker, F. G. A., Rasche, A., & Ponte, S. (2019). Multi-stakeholder initiatives on Sustainability: A cross-disciplinary review and research agenda for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(03), 343-383. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.10 Delre, S. A., Jager, W., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2010). Will it spread or not? The effects of social influences and network topology on innovation diffusion. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(2), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00714.x De Marchi, V., Giuliani, E., & Rabellotti, R. (2018). Do global value chains offer developing countries learning and innovation opportunities? European Journal of Development Research, 30, 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0126-z Díaz‐Casero, J. C., Díaz‐Aunión, D. Á. M., Sánchez‐Escobedo, M. C., Coduras, A., & Hernández‐Mogollón, R. (2012). Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. Management Decision, 50(9), 1686-1711. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211266750 Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 880-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.028 Dimos, C., & Pugh, G. (2016). The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature. Research Policy, 45(4), 797-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.002 Ding, H. (2022). What kinds of countries have better innovation performance? A country-level fsQCA and NCA study. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100215 Dosi, G., & Soete, L. (2022). On the syndemic nature of crises: A Freeman perspective. Research Policy, 51(1), 104393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104393 Duit, A., & Löf, A. (2018). Dealing with a wicked problem? A dark tale of carnivore management in Sweden 2007-2011. Administration & Society, 50(8), 1072-1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715595668 Dunlop, C. A. (2009). Policy transfer as learning: Capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy Studies, 30(3), 289-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870902863869 Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313-319. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782329 Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation approaches-Their emergence and characteristics In C. Edquist (Ed). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. (pp.1-35). Pinter. Edquist, C. (2019). Towards a holistic innovation policy: Can the Swedish National Innovation Council (NIC) be a role model? Research Policy, 48(4), 869-879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.008 Elahi, S., Kalantari, N., Azar, A, & Hassanzadeh, M. (2016). Impact of common innovation infrastructures on the national innovative performance: Mediating role of knowledge and technology absorptive capacity. Innovation, 18(4), 536-560. http://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1233825 Ellis, J., Smith, J., & White, R. (2020). Corruption and corporate innovation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 55(7), 2124-2149. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022109019000735 Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011 Enkel, E., Heil, S., Hengstler, M., & Wirth, H. (2017). Exploratory and exploitative innovation: To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity contribute? Technovation, 60-61, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.08.002 Ergas, H. (2005). The importance of technology policy. In P. Dasgupta & P. Stoneman (Eds). Economic policy and technological performance (pp. 51-96). Cambridge University Press. Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.022 Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4 Evans, P. (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on Synergy. World Development, 24(6), 1119-1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(96)00021-6 Fabrizio, K. R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy, 38(2), 255-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.023 Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies-The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006 Farè, L., Audretsch, D. B., & Dejardin, M. (2023). Does democracy foster entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00737-7 Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.2.zok202 Flink, T., & Kaldewey, D. (2018). The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor. Research Policy, 47(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.008 Filippetti, A., Frenz, M., & Ietto-Gillies, G. (2016). The impact of internationalization on innovation at countries’ level: The role of absorptive capacity. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(2), 413-439. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew032 Florida, R. (2014). The creative class and economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(3), 196-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242414541693 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. (pp.1-6). Pinter Publishers. Freeman, C. (2002). Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems-Complementarity and economic growth. Research Policy, 31(2) 191-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00136-6 Flink, T., & Kaldewey, D. (2018). The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor. Research Policy, 47(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.008 Fu, X., Hou, J., & Liu, X. (2018). Unpacking the relationship between outward direct investment and innovation performance: Evidence from Chinese firms. World Development, 102, 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.09.021 Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00152-4 Gabel, M., Jung, C., & Nüesch, S. (2024). Tracing non-linearity in the relationship of economic freedom and national health innovation system efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 122788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122788 Gaimon, C., & Ramachandran, K. (2021). The knowledge value chain: An operational perspective. Production and Operations Management, 30(3), 715-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13312 Galli, R., & Teubal, M. (1997). Paradigm Shifts in National Innovation Systems. In C. Edquist (Ed). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. (pp. 342-370). Pinter. Gao, Y., Zang, L., Roth, A., & Wang, P. (2017). Does democracy cause innovation? An empirical test of the popper hypothesis. Research Policy, 46(7), 1272-1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.014 Gherhes, C., Yu, Z., Vorley, T., & Xue, L. (2023). Technological trajectories as an outcome of the structure-agency interplay at the national level: Insights from emerging varieties of AI. World Development, 168, 106252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106252 Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press. Gilsing, V., & Nooteboom, B. (2006). Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 35(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.06.007 Girschik, V. (2020). Managing legitimacy in business‐driven social change: The role of relational work. Journal of Management Studies, 57(4), 775-804. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12544 Gölgeci, I., Swiatowiec-Szczepanska, J., & Raczkowski, K. (2017). How does cultural intelligence influence the relationships between potential and realised absorptive capacity and innovativeness? Evidence from Poland. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(8), 857-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1245858 Gong, G., & Keller, W. (2003). Convergence and polarization in global income levels: A review of recent results on the role of international technology diffusion. Research Policy, 32(6), 1055-1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00136-1 Goodin, R. E. (2017). The epistemic benefits of deliberative democracy. Policy Science, 50, 351-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9286-0 Goodwin, G. (2019). The problem and promise of coproduction: Politics, history, and autonomy. World Development, 122, 501-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.007. Gough, C., & Shackley, S. (2001). The respectable politics of climate change: The epistemic communities and NGOs. International Affairs, 77(2), 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00195 Griffin, L. (2010). The limits to good governance and the state of exception: A case study of North Sea fisheries. Geoforum, 41(2), 282-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.10.007 Grigoriou, K., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2013). Structural microfoundations of innovation. Journal of Management, 40(2), 586-615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313513612 Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026 Gutin, I., & Hummer, R. A. (2021). Social inequality and the future of US life expectancy. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 501-520. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-072320-100249 Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442 Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175-195. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834510939 Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). An introduction to varieties of capitalism systems of innovation approaches. In P.A. Hall, & D. Soskice. (Eds). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp.1-68). Oxford University Press. Hare, C. & Monogan, J. E. (2020). The democratic deficit on salient issues: Immigration and healthcare in the states. Journal of Public Policy, 40(1), 116-143, http://doi:10.1017/S0143814X18000296 Hausken, K., & Moxnes, J. F. (2019). Innovation, development and national indices. Social Indicators Research, 141(3), 1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1873-8 Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827 He, B., & Warren, M. E. (2020). Can meritocracy replace democracy? A conceptual framework. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 46(9), 1093-1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453720948388 He, C., Wang, T., Shah, S.A., Chang, Y., & Zhou, X. (2023). A study on the moderating role of national absorptive capacity between institutional quality and FDI inflow: Evidence from developing countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(1), 2177-2198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2022.2096659 He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078 Henderson, D. (2019). Policy entrepreneurship in context: Understanding the emergence of novel policy solutions for services innovation in Finland and Ireland, Science and Public Policy, 46(5), 668-678. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz020 Hennen L. (1999), Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782310 Heracleous, L., Papachroni, A., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2017). Structural ambidexterity and competency traps: Insights from Xerox PARC. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 327-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.014 Hill, C. W. L. (1995). National institutional structures, transaction cost economizing and competitive advantage: The case of Japan. Organization Science, 6(1), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.119 Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056 Hommen, L., & Edquist, C. (2008). Globalization and innovation policy. In C. Edquist & L. Hommen (Eds.), Small country innovation systems: Comparing globalisation, change and policy in Asia and Europe (pp. 442-484). Edward Elgar Publishing. Hossain, M., Atif, M., Ahmed, A., & Mia, L. (2020). Do LGBT workplace diversity policies create value for firms? Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 775-791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04158-z Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1 Hu, M.-C., & Mathews, J. A. (2005). National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research Policy, 34(9), 1322-1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.04.009 Hu, M.-C., & Mathews, J. A. (2008). China’s national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 37(9), 1465-1479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.003 Huang, C., & Sharif, N. (2016). Global technology leadership: The case of China. Science and Public Policy, 43(1), 62-73. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv019 Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century (pp. 5-12). University of Oklahoma Press. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Olander, H. (2014). Coping with rivals’ absorptive capacity in innovation activities. Technovation, 34(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.07.005 Huttunen, S., Ojanen, M., Ott, A., & Saarikoski, H. (2022). What about citizens? A literature review of citizen engagement in sustainability transitions research. Energy Research & Social Science, 91, 102714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102714 Ibanez, A., AlRadaideh, A., Jimber del Rio, J. A., & Sisodia, G. S. (2023). Good governance and innovation: A renewed global framework for national and supranational policy advancement. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01324-7 Ingold, K., Stadelmann-Steffen, I., & Kammermann, L. (2019). The acceptance of instruments in instrument mix situations: Citizens’ perspective on Swiss energy transition. Research Policy, 48(10), 103694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.018 Jackman, R. W. (1974). Political democracy and social equality: A comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 39(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094274 Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999-1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.19573106 Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., García-Morales, V. J., & Molina, L. M. (2011). Validation of an instrument to measure absorptive capacity. Technovation, 31(5-6), 190-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.12.002 Jin, N., Yang, N., Fawad Sharif, S. M., Li, R., & Du, J. (2023). Influence of knowledge flow and knowledge stock on the technological niche through absorptive capacity in the R&D network. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 35(12), 1533-1546. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2098101 Jochim, A. E., & May, P. J. (2010). Beyond subsystems: Policy regimes and governance. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 303-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00363.x Johnson, B. (1992). Institutional learning. In B.-Å. Lundvall (Ed.), National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. (pp. 23-44). Anthem Press. Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299-312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015 Kaiser, R., & Prange, H. (2004). The reconfiguration of national innovation systems-The example of German biotechnology. Research Policy, 33(3), 395-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.001 Kalantari, E., Montazer, G., & Ghazinoory, S. (2022). Modeling the characteristics of collaborative science and technology policy network. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(5), 504-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1908537 Kallio, A., Harmaakorpi, V., & Pihkala, T. (2010). Absorptive capacity and social capital in regional innovation systems: The case of the Lahti region in Finland. Urban Studies, 47(2), 303-319. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183-1194. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069433 Kaufmann, D. (2013). The influence of causation and effectuation logics on targeted policies: The cases of Singapore and Israel. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(7), 853-870. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.815714 Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008 Khedhaouria, A., & Thurik, R. (2017). Configurational conditions of national innovation capability: A fuzzy set analysis approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.005 Ko, Y., Ko, H., Chung, Y, & Woo, C. (2021). Do gender equality and work-life balance matter for innovation performance? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(2), 148-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1799971 Kohlbacher, M., Weitlaner, D., Hollosi, A., Grünwald, S., & Grahsl, H. (2013). Innovation in clusters: Effects of absorptive capacity and environmental moderators. Competitiveness Review, 23(3), 199-217. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595421311319807 Korda, R. J., Clements, M. S., & Dixon, J. (2011). Socioeconomic inequalities in the diffusion of health technology: Uptake of coronary procedures as an example. Social Science & Medicine, 72(2), 224-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.002 Kouton, J., Bétila, R. R., & Lawin, M. (2021). The impact of ICT development on health outcomes in Africa: Does economic freedom matter? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12, 1830-1869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00689-3 Krammer, S. M. S. (2009). Drivers of national innovation in transition: Evidence from a panel of Eastern European countries. Research Policy, 38(5), 845-860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.022 Krasner, S. D. (1983). International Regimes. Cornell University Press. Kuckertz, A., Berger, E. S. C., & Mpeqa, A. (2016). The more the merrier? Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1288-1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.094 Kuhlmann, S. (2001). Future governance of innovation policy in Europe-three scenarios. Research Policy, 30(6), 953-976. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00167-0 Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998), Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199805)19:5<461::AID-SMJ953>3.0.CO;2-L Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797-818. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083085 Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148-166. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00537.x Lee, J-H, & Woo, J. (2020). Green new deal policy of South Korea: Policy innovation for a sustainability transition. Sustainability, 12(23), 10191. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310191 Lee, C. C., & Yang, J. (2000). Knowledge value chain. Journal of Management Development, 19(9), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710010378228 Lee, S. H., & Yoo, T. (2007). Government policy and trajectories of radical innovation in dirigiste states: A comparative analysis of national innovation systems in France and Korea. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 451-470. http://doi.org/10.1080/09537320701403383 Lehmann, E. E., & Seitz, N. (2017). Freedom and innovation: A country and state level analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1009-1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9478-3 Levidow, L. (1998). Democratizing technology-or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Technology in Society, 20(2), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(98)00003-7 Levinthal, D.A., & March, J.G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009 Li, X. (2012). Behind the recent surge of Chinese patenting: An institutional view. Research Policy, 41(1), 236-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.003 Li, Z. (2020). Confucian meritocracy, political legitimacy and constitutional democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 46(9), 1076-1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453720948403 Limaj, E., & Bernroider, E. W. N. (2019). The roles of absorptive capacity and cultural balance for exploratory and exploitative innovation in SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 94, 137-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.052 Lin, G. T-R., Chang Y.-H., & Shen, Y. C. (2010). Innovation policy analysis and learning: Comparing Ireland and Taiwan. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(7-8), 731-762. http://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2010.483290 Lindvall, D., & Karlsson, M. (2023). Exploring the democracy-climate nexus: A review of correlations between democracy and climate policy performance. Climate Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2256697 Link A., & Scott J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39(5), 589-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.006 Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951731 Liu, Z., Cai, L., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Gender diversity and environmental performance: New evidence from China. Sustainability, 14(21), 13775. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113775 Llorente, C., Revuelta, G., & Carrió, M. (2021). Social participation in science: Perspectives of Spanish civil society organizations. Public Understanding of Science, 30(1), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520960663 López-Cabarcos, M. A., Piñeiro-Chousa, J., & Quiñoá-Piñeiro, L. (2021). An approach to a country's innovation considering cultural, economic, and social conditions. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 34(1), 2747-2766. http://10.1080/1331677X.2020.1838314 Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). Introduction. In B.-Å. Lundvall (Ed.), National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. (pp. 1-20). Anthem Press. Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00137-8. Maggor, E. (2021). The politics of innovation policy: Building Israel’s “Neo-developmental” state. Politics & Society, 49(4), 451-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329220945527 Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00139-1 Malik, A., Sharma, P., Pereira, V., & Temouri, Y. (2021). From regional innovation systems to global innovation hubs: Evidence of a quadruple helix from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Research, 128, 587-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.009 Mancusi, M. L. (2008). International spillovers and absorptive capacity: A cross-country cross-sector analysis based on patents and citations, Journal of International Economics, 76(2), 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.06.007. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955-967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013 March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 Martin, S., & Scott, J. T. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 437-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00084-0 Matusik, S. F., & Heeley, M. B. (2005). Absorptive capacity in the software industry: Identifying dimensions that affect knowledge and knowledge creation activities. Journal of Management, 31(4), 549-572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272293 May, P. J., & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12024 Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. PublicAffairs. McAdam, M., & Debackere, K. (2017). Beyond ‘triple helix’ toward ‘quadruple helix’ models in regional innovation systems: Implications for theory and practice. R&D Management, 48(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12309 McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118-131. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069340 Metcalfe, S. (1995). The economic foundations of technology policy: Equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technical change (pp. 409-512). Blackwell Publishers. Meyer-Krahmer, F. (1988). Evaluation of industrial innovation policy: Concepts, methods and lessons. In J.D. Roessner (Ed.), Government innovation policy: Design, implementation, evaluation (pp. 121-133). Macmillan in association with the Policy Studies Organization. Midgal, J. S. (1988). Strong societies and weak states: State-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World. Princeton University Press. Midttun, A., & Witoszek, N. (2020). The competitive advantage of collaboration–Throwing new light on the Nordic model. New Political Economy, 25(6), 880-896. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1657078 Miller, D. (1992). Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies, 40(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1992.tb01812.x Mitcham, C. (2021). Science policy and democracy. Technology in Society, 67, 101783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101783 Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105 Moon, H.-S., & Lee, J.-D. (2005). A fuzzy set theory approach to national composite S&T indices. Scientometrics, 64(1), 67-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0238-7 Moro, M. A., Andersen, M. M., Smets, B. F., & McKnight, U. S. (2019). National innovative capacity in the water sector: A comparison between China and Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 325-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.329 Mowery, D. C., & Oxley, J. E. (1995). Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: The role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 67-93. Mueller, V., Rosenbusch, N., & Bausch, A. (2013). Success patterns of exploratory and exploitative innovation. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1606-1636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313484516 Mueller, E., Syme, L., & Haeussler, C. (2020). Absorbing partner knowledge in R&D collaborations-The influence of founders on potential and realized absorptive capacity. R&D Management, 50(2), 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12395 Murovec, N., & Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation, 29(12), 859-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.05.010 Nadeem, M. A., Liu, Z., Zulfiqar, S., Younis, A., & Xu, Y. (2021). Does corruption impede innovation in developing economies? Insights from Pakistan: A call for policies reforms. Crime, Law and Social Change, 75(2), 93-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09927-w Nelson, R. R. (1992). National innovation systems: A retrospective on a study. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1(2), 347-374. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/1.2.347 Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R.R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 1-21). Oxford University Press. Nelson, R. R., & Nelson, K. (2002). Technology, institutions, and innovation systems. Research Policy, 31(2), 265-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00140-8 Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press. Ng, D., & Sanchez-Aragon, L. F. (2022). Putting the cart (antecedents) before the horse (absorptive capacity): The role of competitive antecedents to the absorptive capacity innovation process. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(9), 2306-2332. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-07-2021-0518 Niosi, J., Saviotti, P., Bellon, B., & Crow, M. (1993). National systems of innovation: In search of a workable concept. Technology in Society, 15(2), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791x(93)90003-7 Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 North, D. (1981) Structure and change in economic history. W.W. Norton & Company. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. Nowacki, C., & Monk, A. (2020). Ambidexterity in government: The influence of different types of legitimacy on innovation. Research Policy, 49(1), 103840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103840 Omidi, V., Shahabadi, A., & Mehregan, N. (2020). Innovation drivers in developing countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(2), 707-720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0568-3 O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025 Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (1998). Regimes and regime building in American government: A review of literature on the 1940s. Political Science Quarterly, 113(4), 689-702. https://doi.org/10.2307/2658250 Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data on innovation (n.d.). https://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-en.htm Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X. Papaioannou, T. (2021). The idea of justice in innovation: Applying non-ideal political theory to address questions of sustainable public policy in emerging technologies. Sustainability, 13(5), 2655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052655 Pavitt, K., & Patel, P. (1999). Global corporations and national systems of innovation: Who dominates whom? In D. Archibugi, J. Howells, & J. Michie (Eds.), Innovation policy in a global economy (pp. 94-119). Cambridge University Press. Pejovich, S. (1999). The effects of the interaction of formal and informal institutions on social stability and economic development. Journal of Markets & Morality, 2(2), 164-181. Pesch, U. (2021). Imaginaries of innovation: Turning technology development into a public issue, Science and Public Policy, 48(2), 257-264. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab017 Pesch, U., & Vermaas, P. E. (2020). The wickedness of Rittel and Webber’s dilemmas. Administration & Society, 52(6), 960-979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720934010 Peters, B. G. (2015). State failure, governance failure and policy failure: Exploring the linkages. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3-4), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076715581540 Petralia, S., Balland, P.-A., & Morrison, A. (2017). Climbing the ladder of technological development. Research Policy, 46(5), 956-969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.012 Pettersson, F., & Sørensen, C. H. (2020). Why do cities invest in bus priority measures? Policy, polity, and politics in Stockholm and Copenhagen, Transport Policy, 98, 178-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.10.013 Petraite, M., Mubarak, M.F., Rimantas, R., & Von Zedtwitz, M. (2022). The role of international networks in upgrading national innovation systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 184, 121873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121873 Pittiglio, R., Sica, E., & Villa, S. (2009). Innovation and internationalization: The case of Italy, Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 588-602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9107-5 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Popa, E. O., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2020). A processual approach to friction in quadruple helix collaborations. Science and Public Policy, 47(6), 876-889. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa054 Popper, K. (1952). Open society and its enemies (2nd ed.). Routledge. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press. Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press. Prebble, M. (2021). Public value is unknowable; Public authority makes every government decision a wicked problem. Administration & Society, 53(10), 1582-1602. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211022685 Proksch, D., Busch-Casler, J., Haberstroh, M. M., & Pinkwart, A. (2019). National health innovation systems: Clustering the OECD countries by innovative output in healthcare using a multi indicator approach. Research Policy, 48(1), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.004 Qian, H. F., & Jung, H. J. (2017). Solving the knowledge filter puzzle: Absorptive capacity, entrepreneurship and regional development. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9769-y Rakas, M., & Hain, D. S. (2019). The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface? Research Policy, 48(9), 103787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.011 Rangus, K., & Slavec, A. (2017). The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms’ innovation and business performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.017 Rask, M. (2013). The tragedy of citizen deliberation: Two cases of participatory technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.751012 Ren, S., Hao, Y., & Wu, H. (2021). Government corruption, market segmentation and renewable energy technology innovation: Evidence from China. Journal of Environmental Management, 300, 113686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113686 Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01405730 Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004269288 Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725 Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. Roper, S., & Love, J. H. (2018). Knowledge context, learning and innovation: An integrating framework. Industry and Innovation, 25(4), 339-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1414744 Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23(3), 323-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)90042-6 Roszko-Wójtowicz, E., Dańska-Borsiak, B., Grzelak, M. M., & Pleśniarska, A. (2022). In search of key determinants of innovativeness in the regions of the Visegrad Group countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(4), 1015-1045. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.029 Rothwell, R., & Zegveld, W. (1981). Industrial Innovation and Public Policy: Preparing for the 1980s and the 1990s. Greenwood Press. Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(3), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120302 Sancho-Zamora, R., Gutiérrez-Broncano, S., Hernández-Perlines, F., & Peña-García, I. (2021). A multidimensional study of absorptive capacity and innovation capacity and their impact on business performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.751997 Sauermann, H., Vohland, K., Antoniou, V., Balazs, B., Gobel, C., Karatzas, K., Mooney, P., Perello, J., Ponti, M., Samson, R., & Winter, S. (2020). Citizen science and sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 49(5), 103978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103978 Schmidt, V. A. (2012). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘Throughput.’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011 Schumpeter, J. A. (1947a). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (2nd ed., p. 84). Harper. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947b). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (2nd ed., p. 269). Harper. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493-511. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392880 Sen, A. (2001). Development and freedom. Oxford University Press. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229967 Shahbaz, M. (2013). Linkages between inflation, economic growth and terrorism in Pakistan. Economic Modelling, 32, 496-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.02.014 Shaikh, I. A., & Randhawa, K. (2022). Industrial R&D and national innovation policy: An institutional reappraisal of the US national innovation system. Industrial and Corporate Change, 31(5), 1152-1176. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac01 Sharif, N. (2006). Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept. Research Policy, 35(5), 745-766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.001 Sharma, A., Sousa, C., & Woodward, R. (2022). Determinants of innovation outcomes: The role of institutional quality. Technovation, 118, 102562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102562 Shi, X., Liang, X., & Luo, Y. (2023). Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies. Research Policy, 52(6), 104783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104783 Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In P.B. Evans, & D. Ruschemeyer (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 3-38). Cambridge University Press. Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. University of Oklahoma Press. Smith-Doerr, L. (2010). Flexible organizations, innovation and gender equality: Writing for the US film industry, 1907-27. Industry and Innovation, 17(1), 5-22. http://doi.org/10.1080/13662710903573810 Söderholm, P., Hellsmark, H., Frishammar, J., Hansson, J., Mossberg, J., & Sandström, A. (2019). Technological development for sustainability: The role of network management in the innovation policy mix. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.010 Sofka, W. (2008). Globalizing domestic absorptive capacities. MIR: Management International Review, 48(6), 769-792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-008-0106-9 Song, Y., Gnyawali, D. R., Srivastava, M. K., & Asgari, E. (2018). In search of precision in absorptive capacity research: A synthesis of the literature and consolidation of findings. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2343-2374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318773861 Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 331-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.663959 Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). Leaders and followers: Perspectives on the Nordic model and the economics of Innovation. Journal of Public Economics, 127, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.09.005 Su, Z., Ahlstrom, D., Li, J., & Cheng, D. (2013). Knowledge creation capability, absorptive capacity, and product innovativeness. R&D Management, 43(5), 473-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12033 Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 Švarc, J., & Dabić, M. (2021). Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries, Technology in Society, 67,101705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101705 Taylor, M. Z. (2004). Empirical evidence against varieties of capitalism's theory of technological innovation. International Organization, 58(3), 601-631. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304583066 Taylor, M. Z. (2007). Political decentralization and technological innovation: Testing the innovative advantages of decentralized states. Review of Policy Research, 24(3), 231-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00279.x Taylor, M. Z. (2009). International linkages and national innovation rates: An exploratory probe. Review of Policy Research, 26(1-2), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00372.x Taylor, M. Z., & Wilson, S. (2012). Does culture still matter?: The effects of individualism on national innovation rates. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 234-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.10.001 Taylor, M. Z. (2016). The politics of innovation: Why some countries are better than others at science & technology. Oxford University Press. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z Ter Wal, A. L. J., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2017). Making a marriage of materials: The role of gatekeepers and shepherds in the absorption of external knowledge and innovation performance. Research Policy, 46(5), 1039-1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.003 Thierstein, A., & Willhelm, B. (2001). Incubator, technology, and innovation centres in Switzerland: Features and policy implications. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13(4), 315-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620110074469 Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774-786. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275513 Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069443 Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852 Van Bueren, E. M. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug017 Van Oudheusden, M. (2014). Learning in, through, and about participatory technology assessment: The case of Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society (NanoSoc). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(7), 825-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.902436 Van Rensburg, N. J., Telukdarie, A., & Dhamija, P. (2019). Society 4.0 applied in Africa: Advancing the social impact of technology. Technology in Society, 59, 101125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.04.001 Van Rooij, A., Berkers, E., Davids, M., & Veraart, F. (2008). National innovation systems and international knowledge flows: An exploratory investigation with the case of the Netherlands. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320801931291 Varsakelis, N. C. (2006). Education, political institutions and innovative activity: A cross-country empirical investigation. Research Policy, 35(7), 1083-1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.06.002 Vega‐Jurado, J., Gutiérrez‐Gracia, A., & Fernández‐de‐Lucio, I. (2008). Analyzing the determinants of firm’s absorptive capacity: Beyond R&D. R&D Management, 38(4), 392-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00525.x Vehviläinen, M., & Valaskivi, L. (2022). Situated gender equality in regional research and innovation: Collaborative knowledge production. Science and Public Policy, 49(4), 561-572. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac007 VINNOVA. (2015). National research and innovation councils as an instrument of innovation governance: Characteristics and challenges. https://www.vinnova.se/contentassets/4da13cc174a448d1a3f0b816c6b74366/va_15_07t.pdf Viotti, E. B. (2002). National learning systems: A new approach on technological change in late industrializing economies and evidences from the cases of Brazil and South Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(7), 653-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00167-6. Wagle, U. (2000). The policy science of democracy: The issues of methodology and citizen participation. Policy Sciences, 33, 207-223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026500906034 Wang, Y., & Guo, B. (2020). Managing external knowledge search: The multiple and contingent roles of absorptive capacity. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1632821 Wang, L., Luo, G., Sari, A., & Shao, X.-F. (2020). What nurtures fourth industrial revolution? An investigation of economic and social determinants of technological innovation in advanced economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120305 Wang, Q.-J., Feng, G.-F., Wang, H.-J., & Chang, C.-P. (2021). The impacts of democracy on innovation: Revisited evidence. Technovation, 108, 102333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102333 Watkins, A., Papaioannou, T., Mugwagwa, J., & Kale, D. (2015). National innovation systems and the intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation in developing countries: A critical review of the literature. Research Policy, 44(8), 1407-1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.004 Weaver, K. (2010). Paths and forks or chutes and ladders?: Negative feedbacks and policy regime change. Journal of Public Policy, 30(2), 137-162. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X10000061 Weber, K. M. & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015 Weber, M. (2004a). The three pure types of legitimate rule. In S. Whimster (Ed.), The essential Weber: A reader. (pp. 133-145). Routledge. Weber, M. (2004b). Bureaucracy. In S. Whimster (Ed.), The essential Weber: A reader. (pp. 245-249). Routledge. Weber, M. (2004c). The vocation of politics. In S. Whimster (Ed.), The essential Weber: A reader. (pp. 257-269). Routledge. Weidner, N., Som, O., & Horvat, D. (2023). An integrated conceptual framework for analysing heterogeneous configurations of absorptive capacity in manufacturing firms with the DUI innovation mode. Technovation, 121, 102635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102635 Wen, J., Zheng, M., Feng, G.-F., Chen, S.-W., & Chang, C.-P. (2020). Corruption and innovation: Linear and nonlinear investigations of OECD countries. The Singapore Economic Review, 65(01), 103-129. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217590818500273 Wen, J., Qualls, W. J., & Zeng, D. (2021). To explore or exploit: The influence of inter-firm R&D network diversity and structural holes on innovation outcomes. Technovation, 100, 102178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102178 Wen, J., Yin, H.-T., Jang, C.-L., Uchida, H., & Chang, C.-P. (2023). Does corruption hurt green innovation? Yes-global evidence from cross-validation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, 122313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122313 Whetsell, T. A., Dimand, A.-M., Jonkers, K., Baas, J., & Wagner, C. S. (2021). Democracy, complexity, and science: Exploring structural sources of national scientific performance. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 697-711. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab036 Wilson, C. A. (2000). Policy regimes and policy change. Journal of Public Policy, 20(3), 247-274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00000842 Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. South-Western Cengage Learning Wyndow, P., Li, J., & Mattes, E. (2013). Female empowerment as a core driver of democratic development: A dynamic panel model from 1980 to 2005. World Development, 52, 34-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06.004 Xiao, P., Zhang, H., Sun, X., Zhang, F., Du, X., & Liu, G. (2022). International ambidexterity and innovation performance: The moderating role of the host country’s institutional quality. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(3), 100218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100218 Yoo, S. (2020). Innovation in practice: The "Technology Drive Policy" and the 4Mb DRAM R&D consortium in South Korea in the 1980s and 1990s. Technology and Culture, 61(2), 385-415. http://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2020.0047 Yousaf, M., Ihsan, F., & Ellahi, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of good governance on citizens’ trust in Pakistan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.001 Yu, Y., Yuan L., & Li, J. (2019). Knowledge search modes and innovation performance: The moderating role of strategic R&D orientation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(6), 625-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1541172 Yu, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, M., & Fan, F. (2022). Cross-national knowledge transfer, absorptive capacity, and total factor productivity: The intermediary effect test of international technology spillover. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(6), 625-640. http://doi.org./10.1080/09537325.2021.1915476 Yun, J. J., & Liu, Z. (2019). Micro-and macro-dynamics of open innovation with a quadruple-helix model. Sustainability, 11(12), 3301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123301 Zahavi, A., & Breznitz, D. (2017). Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples. Research Policy, 46(1), 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.007 Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351 Zakari, A., Tawiah, V., Oyewo, B., & Alvarado, R. (2023). The impact of corruption on green innovation: The case of OECD and non-OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(6), 1336-1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2027234 Zang, J. (2018). Structural holes, exploratory innovation and exploitative Innovation. Management Decision, 56(8), 1682-1695. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-05-2017-0485 Zang, L., Xiong, F., Lao, X., & Gao, Y. (2019). Does governance efficiency matter for national innovative capacity? One tale from different countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(2), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1493450 Zecca, E., & Nicolli, F. (2021). Inequality, democracy and green technological change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 306, 127061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127061 Zeng, J., Liu, Y., Wang, R., & Zhan, P. (2019). Absorptive capacity and regional innovation in China: An analysis of patent applications, 2000-2015. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 12, 1031-1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-019-09300-y Zhao, Q., & Su, C.-W. (2023). Does anti-corruption facilitate or hinder technological innovation? The Singapore Economic Review, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217590823500297 Zúñiga-Vicente, J. Á., Alonso-Borrego, C., Forcadell, F. J., & Galán, J .I. (2014). Assessing the effect of public subsidies on firm R&D investment: A Survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(1), 36-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00738.x
描述:	博士國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所 108364504
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108364504
数据类型:	thesis
显示于类别:	[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
450401.pdf		4490Kb	Adobe PDF	0	检视/开启

在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回馈