本文基于技术变革分类,提出渐进型、破坏型、革命型三种技术追赶路径,并提炼各路径不同发展阶段的创新重点及动态演化特征.借助曲线拟合方法,初步获得三种技术追赶路径的创新演化特征.在渐进型技术追赶过程中,创新率的最大值出现在路径后期,之后虽有下降,但幅度不大；在破坏型技术追赶过程中,尽管创新率曲线呈线性特征,但从散点图特征来看,仍然存在先高、后低、再升高的趋势；在革命型技术追赶过程中,创新率迅速提高至“峰值”后,迅速下降.%China has been undergoing impressive economic growth since its economic reforms. However, many studies suggest that technology development strategy remains a challenge for China. According to a 2006 survey report by Chinese Administration of Science and Technology on indigenous industrial innovation capabilities, most industries in China are trapped into augmenting their manufacturing capacities via importing equipment and technology instead of increasing investment in research activities and emerging technologies. Another report issued by China's National Bureau of Statistics on national manufacturing innovations from 2004 to 2006 finds consistent results. Most of the surveyed manufacturers in this study are comfortable with continuous improvements using existing technologies. Only 9% of firms in this study try to catch up with leading domestic competitors, and only 2. 7% of them aim at catching up quickly with leading international competitors.In this paper, we approach these questions related to the evolution of innovations by developing dynamic models for all possible catch-up patterns and by testing them against the collected data. First, we re-categorize technological changes in order to provide a general framework for the analysis of technology development trajectories. Second, catch-up patterns are investigated with a view towards developing a new categorization of technological change. Finally, each dynamic model of the evolution of innovation is developed in relation to a pattern of catch-up pattern. On the basis of these dynamic models, we propose hypotheses regarding the evolution of innovations and when transition occurs. We assert that the evolution of innovation exhibits variations in the level of novelty and thus the decision of firms to invest in innovation is not simply a matter of deciding whether to imitate mature technologies or develop new technologies.We conduct an initial feasibility test of our proposed model revised from the design of Utterback and Abernathy. First, we classify samples into three types of technological change. Second, we gather data on turnover rates derived from new products at the firm level, which reflects innovation performance within various technological novelty levels. We then develop the new variable, and the degree of completeness of catch-up for different development stages. We use this variable to calculate each catch-up pattern based on market and technological dimensions. Finally, we use the curve estimation statistical method to analyze the evolution of innovation performance on the basis of catch-up completeness.In conclusion, we use the curve estimation method to analyze the variation of innovation rates for three catch-up patterns. The innovation rate increases slowly to a peak at latter stages, and then decreases along with the incremental pattern of catch-up. Although innovation rate curve for disruptive catch-up pattern is more linear than cubic, the Scatter diagram shows both peak and valley. As for the revolutionary catch-up pattern, the innovation rate increases quickly to a peak, and then decreases quickly.
展开▼
