The Geography of Innovation in China and India

Abstract

The BRICS countries in general, and China and India in particular, are now widely regarded as the areas of the world likely to challenge the economic leadership of the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). A large part of this challenge will come from rapid technological catch-up by China and India. Yet, despite a recent rise in interest, there is limited knowledge about how and where innovation takes place in these two leading emerging countries and to what extent the Chinese and Indian territorial systems of innovation differ from those in the EU or the US. In this article we explore the geography of innovation in China and India, concentrating on understanding key territorial-level innovation trends by country, region and technology field, using the US and the EU as benchmarks. We find significant contrasts between the geography of innovation in China and India and that of the US and the EU. First, the degree of concentration of innovative activities in both countries is extremely high. Levels of agglomeration of innovation in the coastal provinces of China, as well as in Delhi and the South of India, significantly exceed the levels of agglomeration found in the USA and the EU. Secondly, China has witnessed a more rapid increase in the degree of concentration of innovation than India. We posit that the differences in the geography of innovation between, on the one hand, China and India and, on the other hand, between these countries and the developed world are rooted in different institutional settings, different systems of innovation and different national innovation strategies.

Spatial Spillovers Revisited: Innovation, Human Capital and Local Dynamics

“…The articles in this symposium focus on different dimensions of innovation and spatial dynamics; the arguments developed reflect a new perspective in which they share a common, comprehensive and integrated understanding of innovation as a key element in spatial symbiosis. The central and common concepts of the symposium are as follows: Innovation processes, networks and globalization are fundamentally linked to territory, and this territorial orientation furthers our understanding of the connection between innovation and space (Capello, ; Crescenzi and Rodríguez‐Pose, , both in this issue) Innovation often takes place in symbiotic networks and such networks are not necessarily local; in general, global connections and value chains become increasingly relevant to any new conceptualization of innovation and space (Capello) the factors that stimulate new knowledge, invention, innovation and innovation diffusion differ (Capello; Crescenzi and Rodríguez‐Pose) Research capacity and innovation are not spread evenly across countries, regions and cities; the geography of innovative activity is territorially very uneven (Capello; Crescenzi and Rodríguez‐Pose; Faggian et al ., , this issue) Local innovation dynamics are caused by external as well as internal factors; likewise, local innovation processes may, through spillover channels and filters, have an impact elsewhere (Capello; Crescenzi and Rodríguez‐Pose) In some cases, local and regional development is not necessarily linked to local and regional innovation (Capello; Crescenzi and Rodríguez‐Pose; Faggian et al . ) The presence of advanced sectors and of functions such as R&D and higher education may induce innovation paths, which, though important, cannot be considered necessary and/or sufficient conditions for innovation (Capello; Faggian et al .…”

Mapping high R&D city-regions worldwide: a patent heat map approach

“…While the rise of Asian city-regions provides evidence of a global shift, the rise of Asian cluster-regions is partly due to the high concentration of R&D expenditure within Asian countries (Crescenzi and Rodríguez-Pose 2017;Yoon and Park 2017). Of the 19 Asia Pacific city regions in the study 5 are in the top-10 by 2006-2011 (26%) compared to 4 of 76 North American city-regions (5%) and 1 of 36 European city-regions (3%).…”

Enhancing Europe’s Global Power: A Scenario Exercise with Eight Proposals

“…EU member states differ markedly in innovation performance. Efforts to overcome fragmentation have mostly failed at the national level (Renda, ), and research has shown (Crescenzi and Rodríguez‐Pose, ) that successful innovation clusters are typically highly concentrated regionally, at least initially. A pre‐requisite for the success of the measures proposed here is the political willingness to create European champions even if the benefits do not accrue to all member states, let alone regions within them.…”