Technological Innovation Research in China and India: A Bibliometric Analysis for the Period 1991–2015

Abstract

Although a substantial literature on the management of technological innovation exists, several scholars argue that much of this research has been rooted in Western contexts, where key assumptions are very different from those in emerging economies. Building on this viewpoint, we investigate the current state of knowledge on technological innovation in two of the largest and fastest growing emerging economies: China and India. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of author keywords and combined different quantitative approaches – frequency analysis, cluster analysis, and co-word analysis – to review 162 articles on technological innovation published about China and India for the period 1991–2015. From the analyses, the trends in technological innovation research in the two countries and the dominant themes of discussion were identified. These themes were further classified into eight sub-themes. Our key findings indicate a near absence of research on the management of technological innovation based on India, limited volume of research on indigenous aspects of innovation, and a lack of theory-building based on these countries’ contexts. Several suggestions for future research are offered based on the gaps identified.

Individual resources, property rights and entrepreneurship in China

“…The primary contribution is to the literature on entrepreneurship and innovation in emerging markets (Ahmed et al, 2005;Yamakawa et al, 2013;Chatterjee and Sahasranamam, 2014;Bruton and Chen, 2016;Sahasranamam and Sud, 2016). It also extends the literature on the role of property rights protection in state-controlled economies Hendrischke, 2003, 2008;Li, 2004;Schmiele, 2013;Marcotte, 2014;Chatterjee and Sahasranamam, 2018). This study observes that in economies undergoing an institutional transition, such as China, there is a strong disincentive for individuals to invest their human and financial capital towards starting a new venture in the absence of legislation offering property rights protection.…”

Individual capital and social entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions

“…Hence, future research could explore the role of sub-national institutions on social entrepreneurship. There is also need for greater quantitative research to study how social entrepreneurship emerges and thrives in contexts of formal institutional voids (Chatterjee & Sahasranamam, 2018;Mair, Martí, & Ventresca, 2012). Despite these limitations, our study does provide an understanding of how individual capital and formal institutional context interact to influence social entrepreneurship entry.…”

Innovation in and from India: The who, where, what, and when

“…Whatever happens, there is enormous potential for global strategy researchers to advance extant understanding of innovation in and from India. A recent bibliometric analysis of management research on China and India for the period 1991–2015 found 130 articles on China but only 32 on India (Chatterjee & Sahasranamam, forthcoming). Their finding echoes Nair et al (), who lament the dearth of research on innovation in India.…”