A ground-up “Quaternary” innovation strategy for South Korea using entrepreneurial ecosystem platforms

Abstract

This paper offers an account of the recent economic slowdown in the growth trajectory formerly enjoyed by South Korea as one of the first "Asian Tigers". Indicators are provided that, unlike the others, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan that have continued their upward profile, South Korea has stagnated. It is argued that the others and some more recent Asian growth economies have moved upwards to higher value, high skill and high profitability levels and deindustrialising as they did so. This even applies to recent breakthrough economies like China and Vietnam. In each case, "financialization" has been an important element in the growth of the Quaternary economy, even in such relative newcomers as Vietnam, where privatization of services has attracted private equity and other foreign direct investment financiers. Thus manufacturing is less pronounced than it was. Meanwhile, South Korea has a weak international presence of banks and other financial sectors because of the domestic focus in its indigenous growth model. Other weaknesses of closed versus open innovation and "cronyism" at the behest of the Chaebol system can be laid at the door of South Korea's traditional conglomerates. A different model of "thin globalisation" led by knowledge-intensive high-tech, biotech and cleantech with prodigious financialization is characteristic of the new fast-growth regions and countries elsewhere, notably Israel, Silicon Valley and Cambridge. Here flattened hierarchies, reliable networking, and "crossover" innovation are pronounced and from which South Korean industrialists and policymakers could usefully learn to recover past growth performance.

Learning from past pandemic governance: Early response and Public-Private Partnerships in testing of COVID-19 in South Korea

“…Algaissi et al, 2020 , Amsden, 1992 , Baqui et al, August 2020 , Béland, September 2010 , Buse and Harmer, June 2004 , Candido et al, 2020 , Cho, December 2014 , Choung et al, February 2014 , Cooke, December 2017 , Dubey, 2020 , Erlingsson and Brysiewicz, September 2017 , Eyerkaufer et al, 2016 , Forum, 2016 , Fudenberg et al, June 1983 , Gao, et al, 2020 , Hsieh and Shannon, November 2005 , Keane and Weerasinghe, 2008 , Kim et al, 2019 , Ku et al, 2018 , Lee and Ki, 2015 , Lee et al, November 2020 , Lee and Malerba, March 2017 , Lv et al, July 2020 , Mettler, 2014 , Nishtar, December 2004 , Pardo, 2019 , Paital et al, 2020 , Park, May 2013 , Parker et al, December 2019 , Pei et al, 2020 , Perry et al, 2016 , Pierson, July 1993 , Rao, February 2013 , Ruckert and Labonté, 2014 , Sell and Power, 2003 , Sonn and Kang, 2016 , Steyer and Gilbert, February 2013 , Tavares and Lima, 2020 , Lancet, March 2020 , Turner et al, October 2018 , Vijgen et al, 2008 , Yi, Joseph, and Wondong Lee. “Pandemic Nationalism in South Korea.” Society, 2020 , Yoon, July 2015 .…”

The Effect of Network Structure on Performance in South Korea SMEs: The Moderating Effects of Absorptive Capacity

“…The global economy has been stuck in a plateau of a low growth stage for several years [1] and South Korea's economy has also had a slowdown in growth [2]. Moreover, industrial trends are being changed very quickly under globalization [3].…”

Urban innovation policy in the postdevelopmental era: Lessons from Singapore and Seoul

“…However, Isenberg () argues that Asian governments should not simply attempt to replicate the model or characteristics of Silicon Valley or “over‐engineer” clusters. Silicon Valley, the Silicon Wadi (Israel's technology hub), and the Cambridge (U.K.) technology cluster are not the result of overtly top‐down policies or government initiatives (Cooke, ).…”