ساختار سازمانی توسعه پایدار در BRICS: تمرکز بر روی بهره برداری فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29337||2009||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Technology in Society, Volume 31, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 9–28
In contrast to the relative stagnation of economic growth in industrialized countries with mature economies, the so-called BRIC countries have shown conspicuous economic growth in the early 21st century. Brazil, Russia, India, and China currently depend on their geographic advantages for economic development, as they possess abundant natural resources and collectively account for 28.9% of the world's land area and 43.2% of its population. However, as the development trajectories for industrialized countries suggest, sustainable development in BRICs requires innovation for effective utilization of potential resources. Given that the co-evolutionary dynamism between innovation and institutional systems is paramount to innovation driven economies, sustainability of BRICs' economic growth is subject to such co-evolution. Institutional systems are similar to soil in that they cultivate emerging innovation. Recent dramatic advances in information and communication technology (ICT) in BRICs have had a significant impact on the advancement of their institutional systems. Therefore, ICT is expected to trigger co-evolution that will lead to sustainable development in BRICs by means of effective utilization of potential resources. This paper attempts to demonstrate the foregoing hypothetical expectations by means of an empirical analysis comparing co-evolutionary structures in 40 countries and also ICT's triggering role in the four BRIC countries.
1.1. Noteworthy observations It is well known that the BRICs, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India and China, are the four largest developing countries with the most prospective economic growth in the next generation of the world. The BRICs generated 27% of the world GDP (PPP) in 2005 by sharing 28.9% of land space and 43.2% of population . Furthermore, BRICs have abundant natural resources. China accomplished a conspicuous economic growth of 9.8% p.a. over the period 1980–2003, followed by India and Brazil with 5.8% and 2.4% p.a., respectively . In addition, Russia started its high economic growth in 1998 and is now at a level similar to India. Comparing 2.7% p.a. of G7's average annual growth since 1980 , the BRICs' current economic growth has demonstrated their conspicuous potential. The vast potential of the BRICs' economic growth can be attributed to their affluent natural resources and land, coupled with a large and cheap labor market and a high rate of foreign direct investment. The BRIC's combined crude oil production in 2004 amounted to 20.6% of the world's production . Both China and India have huge populations of over 1 billion, enabling the potential for job growth in manufacturing, software services, and call centers. While Brazil and Russia have smaller populations of 182 million and 144 million, respectively, both countries endeavor to develop their energy and raw materials driven industries . Moreover, the large foreign direct investment in the BRICs has provided them with the necessary financing for economic development. In 2004, the amount of foreign direct investment in the BRICs was 15% of the total foreign direct investment in the world, and 41% of that of all developing countries combined . However, the experiences of developed countries and NIEs (Newly Industrializing Economies) demonstrate that sustainable economic development depends on technology innovation that activates and synchronizes the potential of natural, financial, and human resources with economic growth  and . Similarly, BRICs' sustainable economic development is subject to technology innovation, whereby they can effectively utilize their potential resources of all kinds. While BRICs have demonstrated a total factor productivity (TFP) growth rate higher than that of other countries—including industrialized countries such as the USA and Japan—their TFP contribution to GDP growth rate still remains at a lower level , , , ,  and . This implies that while the BRICs make use of potential technology development, they still remain dependent on the impetus of rapid economic growth and not on substantial innovation which would enable effective synchronization of their potential resources with sustainable development. If the rise and fall of the Japanese economy over the last half century can be attributed to the co-evolution and subsequent disengagement between innovation and institutional systems  and , BRICs' substantial innovation can also be attributed to their co-evolutionary dynamism. Notable prospects for this expectation can be seen in BRICs' conspicuous advancement in information and communication technology (ICT) ,  and . Corresponding to a paradigm shift from an industrial to an information society in the 1990s and with the unique features of ICT as a self-propagating dynamism reacting to the impetus of economic growth  and , BRICs have demonstrated the world's highest advancement in development and utilization of ICT in computers, the Internet, and mobile phones  and . With the impetus of economic growth, such rapid advancement, in turn, drives the co-evolution of their institutional systems  and . This increase suggests that the advancement of ICT in BRICs could trigger the co-evolution between their innovation and institutional systems, which is essential for their sustainable development by means of effective utilization of their potential resources. 1.2. Hypotheses The forgoing observations provided us with the following hypothetical views with respect to the BRICs' future sustainability in their development by means of their potential resources: (i) BRICs' sustainable development depends on the effective utilization of their potential resources including human and natural resources by means of technological advancement. (ii) Such technological advancement is subject to the co-evolutionary dynamism between innovation and institutional systems. (iii) The development of ICT plays a triggering role for this co-evolution. 1.3. Existing works The term of BRICs was first used in a Goldman Sachs' report , which argued that the economies of the BRICs are rapidly developing and will eclipse most of the current richest countries of the world by the year 2050. Goldman Sachs released a follow-up report in 2004 focusing on the impact of the growth of these four economies on global markets . Stimulated by these reports, many researchers have studied the important role of BRICs in the world economy and global policy and the potential development of BRICs , , , ,  and . For example, Thornton predicted that “BRICs are expected to play an increasingly important role in the global economy in the coming decades, and these four countries have come to symbolize the exciting challenges and opportunities presented by dynamic emerging markets” . While these studies highlighted the optimistic views on BRICs' development, some researchers have pointed out critical tasks that could obstruct their optimistic view. Georgieva highlighted the specific risks and challenges in each BRIC country and pointed out that their sustainability of high growth will depend on several crucial factors including sound and stable macroeconomic and development policies, development of strong and capable institutions, human development, and increasing degree of openness . Similarly, Jensen suggested some growth factors for the BRICs such as institutional framework, openness, TFP, capital, population growth, and education level . These studies pointed out the significance of technology advancement for BRICs' sustainable development. However, no empirical analysis has been conducted on the contribution of substantial technological innovation to BRICs' economic growth by means of effective utilization of their potential resources. To date, many studies have attempted to elucidate the dynamism inducing the surge of new innovation. Innovation, assimilation, and utilization of technology chiefly depend on the economy, society, culture, habit, system, and public policies of a country. This comprehensive system may be defined as “institutions.” North  postulated that “The humanly devised constraints structure human interaction. They are made up of formal constraints (e.g. rules, laws, and constitutions), informal constraints (e.g. norms of behavior, conventions, and self-imposed codes of conduct) and their enforcement characteristics.” Ruttan  suggested that “Institutions are the social rules that facilitate coordination among people by helping them form expectations for dealing with each other” and also “They reflect the conventions that have evolved in different societies regarding the behavior of individuals and groups.” Thus, institutions play a prominent role in industrial progress and it is essential to examine the institutional environments for characterizing industrial dynamics and advantages. Meanwhile, a number of works have conducted theoretical and empirical analyses on institutional systems , , , , , , ,  and . Binswanger's pioneer work  paid special attention to the role of institutional systems in inducing innovation. Marten  stressed that co-adaptation and co-evolution are emergent properties of an ecosystem. He stated that while co-adaptation is fitting together, co-evolution is changing together to play an essential role in sustaining an ecosystem. Janes  and Flood  pointed out that while complex institutions reject co-evolution with innovation, they might accelerate self-propagating development once they overcome a certain threshold. In an ICT driven global economy, which is quite similar to an evolutional ecosystem, co-evolution between innovation and institutions is essential for a nation's sustainable development. Watanabe  has also conducted intensive work on the behavior of institutional systems and postulated that institutional systems are defined by a three-dimensional system that consists of (i) national strategy and socio-economic system, (ii) entrepreneurial organization and culture, and (iii) historical perspectives. Given that the co-evolutionary dynamism between innovation and institutional systems is a decisive part of an innovation driven economy, sustainability of BRICs' development is subject to this co-evolution. However, no one has undertaken the analysis in this dimension. As core technology in an information society, ICT is a driving force transforming the traditional socio-economic structure by permeating people's daily life, organizational activities, and society as a whole , ,  and . Furthermore, the unique nature of ICT is formed dynamically through the interaction with institutional systems  and . Watanabe and Kondo  and  demonstrated that the nature of ICT could be developed in a self-propagating way through its interaction with institutions. Given the conspicuous impetus in BRICs' development, there is a strong possibility for them to maximize the benefit of ICT by leveraging its self-propagating nature. However, despite the increasing number of studies on BRICs' development and growth, to date, no attempt has been made to identify the possible co-evolution between their institutional systems and innovation, essential for their sustainable development by making effective utilization of their potential resources. 1.4. Focus of the analysis Based on the preceding reviews, this paper attempts to demonstrate the aforementioned three hypotheses with special focus on the following dimensions: first, the potential of BRICs' technology to utilize their potential resources for sustainable development is analyzed by computing their TFP. Second, considering manufacturing technology, ICT and software as innovation, a comparative empirical analysis is conducted of the co-evolutionary dynamism between innovation and institutional systems in 40 countries with special attention to the four BRIC countries. Finally, the triggering role of ICT to the co-evolutionary dynamism in the BRICs is examined. The ICT is represented here by the personal computer (PC), the Internet (IN), and the mobile phone (MP). 1.5. Structure of the paper Section 1 has presented the introduction, and Section 2 presents the analytical framework. Section 3 analyzes the potential of technological development in the BRICs. The co-evolutionary dynamism between innovation and institutional systems is demonstrated in Section 4. Section 5 identifies the role of ICT in triggering this co-evolution. Finally, Section 6 briefly summarizes the findings, policy implications and the points of future works.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In light of the conspicuous economic growth demonstrated by the BRIC countries in the early 21st century depending on their geographic advantages, this paper analyzed the possibility of their sustainable development and identified the necessary conditions to be satisfied. With the understanding that advancement of technology induced by a co-evolution between innovation and institutional systems is crucial for the BRICs' sustainable development, empirical analyses of the development trajectories in 40 countries centered around the BRIC countries were conducted and demonstrated the following hypothetical views: (i) BRICs sustainable development depends on the effective utilization of their potential resources by technology advancement, (ii) This advancement is subject to the co-evolutionary dynamism between innovation and institutional systems, and (iii) Further advancement of ICT plays a triggering role for this co-evolution. Noteworthy findings include: (i) While BRICs have currently demonstrated a higher TFP growth rate than other countries, its TFP growth depends simply on the impetus of rapid economic growth not on the substantial innovation, enabling effective synchronization of potential resources and sustainable development. (ii) The major factor impeding BRICs' substantial technology innovation can be attributed to low MT levels. (iii) BRICs have constructed a strong interacting relationship between innovation including MT, ICT, software and their institutional systems, and therefore, advancement of MT depends on the way of interaction between ICT, software, and institutional systems. However certain institutional factors impede this interaction and lead to a virtuous cycle that creates a co-evolution between innovation and institutional systems. (iv) Strong impediment factors in the institutional systems common to the BRICs include the weakness of advanced management system such as enterprise management, education and training of employees, reliability of professional management, and degree of efforts for consumer satisfaction. (v) Contrary to the low level of MT, the level of BRICs ICT and software demonstrates noteworthy growth. While the current levels of BRICs ICT and software have remained lower than that of Japan and the USA, the conspicuous growth rates of ICT market environment, labor source and human resource supply in China and India suggest their potential for rapid development. (vi) Given the strong interaction between MT, ICT, software, and institutional systems, further advancement of ICT and software in BRICs can leverage the co-evolution between innovation and institutional systems leading to substantial advancement of technology essential for the effective utilization of potential resources for sustainable development. These findings lead to the following policy implications to support the BRICs sustainable development: (i) Every effort should focus on the effective utilization of abundant natural resources, land area, and population to encourage sustainable development. (ii) Technology advancement efforts should focus on the accomplishment of this development through the improvement of the productivities of resources, land area and labor. (iii) Given that the co-evolution between innovation and institutional systems is essential for substantial innovation enabling the above accomplishment, institutional impediments of such a co-evolution should be eliminated. (iv) In this context, structural improvement of management systems including enterprise management, education and training of employee, market strategy and customer satisfaction systems should be endeavored. (v) Potential comparative advantages in ICT and software should be fully utilized for this improvement. ICTs use as a trigger to leverage co-evolution between innovation and institutional systems should be accelerated. Future research should focus on the in-depth empirical analysis of the similarity and disparity of institutional innovation between the BRIC countries. Identification of comparative advantages and disadvantages on the innovation in each respective country and effects of global co-evolution within the BRICs as well as with other countries would be another important subject to be investigated at high priority.