October 2009 - Posts

• Literature Review VII

  References Archibugi, D. and Michie, J. (1997) (eds.), Technology, globalisation, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.           - (1998). (eds.), Trade, growth, and technical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.           - and Howells, J. (1999) (eds.), Innovation policy in a global economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archigubi, D. and Iammarino, S. (2001). "The globalization of technology and national policies", in The globalizing learning economy, D. Archibugi and B. Lundvall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111-126. Archibugi, D. and Pietrobelli, C. (2003). The globalisation of technology and its implications for developing countries. Windows of opportunity or further burden? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 861-884. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/Globalisation_of_techn_and_science/Globalisation_of_technology.pdf Avgerou, C. (2003a). "New socio-technical perspectives of IS innovation in organizations", in Information systems and the economics of innovation, C. Avgerou  and R. L. La Rovere (eds.), Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp.141-61. Avegrou, C. (2003b). "The link between ICT and economic growth in the discourse of development" [Electronic version], in: Organizational information systems in the context of globalization, M. Korpela, R. Montealegre, and A. Poulymenakou (eds.) Springer, New York, USA, pp. 373-386. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from London School of Economics Research Online Web site: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2575/1/The_link_between_ICT_and_economic_growth_in_the_discourse_of_development_(LSERO).pdf Bardhan, P. (2006). "Globalization and the limits to poverty alleviation", in Globalization and egalitarian distribution, P. Bardhan, S. Bowles, and M. Wallerstein (eds.), Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp.13-32. Bordo, M., Taylor, A., and Williamson, J. (2003) (eds.), Globalization in historical perspective. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Bowels, S. (2006). "Egalitarian Redistribution in Globally Integrated Economics", in Globalization and egalitarian distribution, P. Bardhan, S. Bowles, and M. Wallerstein (eds), Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp.120-47. Cornford, T. (2003). "Information Systems and new technologies: taking shape in use", in Information systems and the economics of innovation, C. Avgerou and R. L. La Rovere (eds.), Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp.162-77. Crook C., Paolera. D., Ferguson N., Krueger A., and Rogowski R. (2003). "Globalization in interdisciplinary perspective", in Globalization in historical perspective, M. Bordo, A. Taylor, and J. Williamson (eds.), Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 549-69. Culpeper, R. (2005). Approaches to globalization and inequality within the international system. UNRISD programme on overarching concerns paper number 6. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from  http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/B8D267D84E8E6A66C12570AE002F994E/$file/culpeper.pdf Edquist, C. (2001). "Innovation policy", in The globalizing learning economy, D. Archibugi and B. Lundvall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 219-38. Feeny, D., Lacity, M., and Willcocks, L. (2005). Taking the measure of outsourcing providers. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), pp. 41-48. Friedman, T. (2006). The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kitson, M. and Michie, J. (1999). ‘The political economy of globalisation', in Innovation policy in a global economy, D. Archibugi, J. Howells, and J. Michie (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.163-83. Lyth, P. and Trischler, H. (2004). (eds.), "Globalisation, history, and technology: an introduction" [Electronic version], in Wiring Prometheus, P. Lyth and H. Trischler (eds.), Aarhus, Demark: Aarhus University Press. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.unipress.dk/docs/managed/9788772889474/9788772889474_excerpt.pdf Madon, S. (2003). "IT Diffusion for public service delivery: looking for plausible theoretical approaches", in Information systems and the economics of innovation, C. Avgerou and R. L. La Rovere (eds.), Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp.71-85. Mann, C. L. (2006). Accelerating the globalization of America: the role for information technology. Washington, DC: Institute for international economics. Mitev, N. (2004). Trains, planes and computers: from high speed trains to computerized reservation systems at French railways. Journal of transport history, 25 (2), pp.101-23. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from London School of Economics and Political Science Web site: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3029/1/Trains,_planes_and_computers.pdf Monteiro, E. (2004). "Actor network theory and cultural aspects of interpretative studies", in The social study of information and communication technology, C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, and F. Land (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.129-39. Obsfeld, M. and Taylor, A. (2003). "Globalization and Capital Markets", in Globalization in historical perspective, M. Bordo, A. Taylor, and J. Williamson (eds), Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp.121-87. Parthasarathy, B. (2004). Globalizing information technology: the domestic policy context for India's software production and exports. Iterations - an interdisciplinary journal of software history, vol. 3. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from Charles Babbage Institute, University of Minnesota Web site: http://www.cbi.umn.edu/iterations/parthasarathy.pdf Pianta, M. (1998). "New technology and jobs", in Globalization, growth, and governance, J. Michie and J. Grieve Smith. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71-98. Przeworski, A. and Meseguer, C. (2006). "Globalization and democracy", in Globalization and egalitarian distribution, P. Bardhan, S. Bowles, and M. Wallerstein (eds.), Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp.169-91. Ruttan, V. (2001). Technology, growth, and development: an induced innovation perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swann, P. (1998). "Innovation in consumption and economic growth", in Globalization, growth, and governance, J. Michie and J. Grieve Smith. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.161-73. Welfens, P., Addison, J., Audretsch, D., Gries, T., and Grupp, H. (1999) (eds.), Globalization, Economic Growth and Innovation Dynamics, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York: Springer. Posted Oct 16 2009, 02:10 AM by admin

• Literature Review VI

  Before reviewing literature for nation-state and policy, there’re couple questions emerging in my mind: what role does nation-state play? does nation-state become less important, or does government policy become less effective? The answer is maybe or may not. We can see that government collaborations such as G20 or G8 are leading the way to resuscitate the economy through billions of funding and to salvage endangered enterprises in this global financial storm.  However, some scholars like Barnet and Cavanagh believe that the way TNCs operate has caused nation-state to lose its authority and to erode in its ability to increase welfare for its citizens. (see Lyth and Trischler, 2004, pp. 8). In Technical and Institutional Innovation, Ruttan (2001, pp.115) stresses the importance of intervention and sufficient resources by a central authority to avoid lock-in of an inferior technology. He gives an example of the U.S. chemical industry superceding its German counterpart by swift successful transition to petroleum-based from coal-based. We need necessary infrastructures built by governments for R&D activities as well as a legal system available to protect the intellectual property rights for the generation, transfer, and diffusion of technology. (see Archibugi et al.,1998). Actually, the government’s role becomes much more important. As a matter of fact, Irish government’s efforts through free public college education, low corporate taxes, and better infrastructure have turned around Ireland from the sick man of Europe to the rich man in less than a generation (Friedman, 2006).         Developing countries can benefit from globalisation of technology if they implement active policies designed to increase learning and improve access to knowledge and technology.  Public policies should therefore induce firms to move from exporting their products to producing locally, and transferring a technological component. In addition to using FDI as a learning opportunity and as a channel of technology transfer, government policies should also try to “upgrade” FDI to strategic technological partnering, fostering collaborations among public and business organizations since doing so will generate externalities which are beneficial for the whole economy. (Archibugi and Pietrobelli, 2003).   For countries in the journey of innovating, policy is long time being recognized as a one of the key factors in achieving national comparative advantage. According to Archibugi and Iammarino (2001), two different tendencies have emerged over the debate on innovation policies. One school of thought regards government policies as irrelevant to strengthen the technological competencies of the country. By contrast, the other school of thought believes that a broader spectrum of public polices is required to equip every nation with technological advantages in face of increasing globalisation. In The Political Economy of Globalisation, Kitson and Michie (1999) argue that increased globalisation of trade and technology increases the need for active government economic, trade, industrial, and technology policies. This implication may be biased, because, as technology develops, geographic boundaries among nations become obscure and things change rapidly.  Thus, national technology policy is susceptible to external volatility and might be, if not necessary, no longer as vital as it used to be to determine one country’s technological capabilities, due to which more researches are needed to investigate its neo-level of influence.          To summarize the literature review, there have been little quantitative and qualitative analyses undertaken to study how approaches and concepts like statistic analysis, social constructivism (ANT), cultural analyses or diffusion model relates the outcomes of ICT (specifically the Internet and mobile phone/technology) innovation, diffusion and transfer to the social-economic, social-political and cultural perspectives in the global, international, or universal fabric (Avegerou, 2003a; Madon, 2003).   Posted Oct 16 2009, 01:47 AM by admin Filed under: Nation state, Policy

• Literature Review V

  To address the concerns for job losses of the protectionist/anti-outsourcing, Friedman (2006, pp. 264) argues that the global pie (market) not only grows larger-because more people will have more income to spend, but also grows more complex - as more new jobs and new specialties are created. Mann (2006) suggests that lower prices afforded by globalisation promote greater adoption and diffusion of IT throughout the economy.  However, she argues that globalisation forces have not been evenly distributed, as illuminated by increased job churns and widening wage disparities, therefore requiring careful adjustment for labor market.  International trade in services could account for up to one-half of the total gain from liberalizing agriculture, manufacturing, and services. To reap the greater gain from service sectors needs a more liberalized trade regime.  Finally, Mann (ibid.) concludes that a proactive policy agenda put forward must meet global challenges as well as the challenges of technological innovation and business transformation.   In criticising neo-classical model favouring globalisation, Culpeper (2005) tends to focus on rising inequity between alleged low-income workers and high-income capitalists that in facto are of different business entity by nature, and plays down like the Bretton Woods schools do, the benefits and economics of scale, that indeed lead to poverty reduction as well as to improve well-being of the poor in developing countries like China and India over the past twenty years. Similarly, his reasoning is favouring low-income workers and biased toward the owners of capital arguing that the latter would reap higher returns from abroad, widening the income inequality (see Culpeper, 2005, pp. 8-9). At the same time, the narrow consideration of economic growth (ibid.) overlooks the growth potential through the inflow of capital that can be used to stimulate the economy in home country by investing more in headquarters and hence generating more jobs to commensurate with the job losses of less-skilled labours, who will have to upgrade their skills and create add-in values vis-à-vis globalising workforce. Although some authors (Avgerou 2003b, pp. 382-83) argue that new industrialized countries (NIC) like East Asian Tigers (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore) represent a small proportion of developing countries and these NICs have succeeded through a series of careful planning and modest policy implementation, with which developing countries are hard to emulate; however arguably, it is evident from a passage of Parthasarathy’s conclusion (2004, pp.30) that experience could be duplicated in its own right:   While the market opportunities provided to the Indian software industry by technological developments since the 1970s, and the political and institutional changes behind the liberal policies that allowed the industry to seize the opportunities, were historically specific and socially contingent, the Indian experience nevertheless offers at least a couple of lessons for other NICs entering the software industry. The Indian experience shows that it is possible to enter the global market and go through a process of learning with the one key advantage that NICs possess: low-wage labor, although in the case of software the labor must also be relatively high-skilled. . . .The Indian strategy and experience with software services is not very different from the strategy and experience of a Taiwan or a South Korea in manufacturing, although there is one difference. Where in the case of the East Asian NICs, it was mass manufacture that provided the means for their “late industrialization” efforts, in the Indian case, it has been the provision of custom software services.   Perhaps average income level and living standard, instead of overwhelming emphasis on inequality, are the issues concerning us the most as yet. Flexibility and agility, likely complementary to the controversial “free-market competition” mechanism, are the most needed by nation states for intervention and to adapt to the process of globalisation at their own pace. Or inferring from Avegrou’s finding (2003b, pp. 379-83), we could be in favour of new institutionalist economics (NIE) demanding the provision of outside-the-market institutions to correct market failure. Posted Oct 16 2009, 01:43 AM by admin Filed under: Unemployment, Inequality

• Literature Review III

  Both Archibugi and Michie eds. (1997) suggest the increasing competition, prompting firms to upgrade their products and processes. Some authors (Archibugi et al., 1999) argue that policies aimed at the creation of technological competence are needed to strengthen national competitiveness and to preserve local well-being.   Technically leading high-income countries will face increasing high technology competition, concentrate more on leading-edge and high technologies and accept that poorer countries specialize more in low and medium technologies. (see Welfens, Addison, Audretsch, Gries, and Grupp eds., 1999). International R&D collaboration could become more important as high technology competition will not only raise the share of high technology exports but push countries to increasing rely on imported high tech equipment and the use of international research networks.   According to Friedman (2006, pp. 13), the number of U.S. tax returns done in India was increased to 400,000 in year 2005 from 25,000 in year 2003, which is sixteen-fold.   A considerable great deal of foreign direct investment (FDI) has been made in past two decades and is expected to grow larger and larger.  Nevertheless, without attempt of debate over whether global capital mobility is greater today than it was before 1914, Obsfeld and Taylor (Bordo, Taylor, and Williamson eds., 2003) suggest that world capital mobility may have flowed more easily to the poorer countries before 1914 than it does today, which is likely untrue.  Globalisation is not only related to higher FDI but also to rising international trade. Firms in EU countries will relocate labor intensive or weakly technology intensive products to Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Africa (Welfens et al., 1999). To prosper in this flat world, Friedman (2006, pp.329) insists to get three things right: (a) the infrastructure to connect as efficiently and speedily as possible, (b) the right education and knowledge skills to empower more of people to innovate and do value-added work, and, (c) the right governance-that is, the right tax policies, the right investment and trade laws, the right support for research, the right intellectual property laws as well as the right inspirational leadership. Nevertheless, one may think that such a general proposition on globalisation is of questionable validity and ask, what are the right education and knowledge skills? What are the right tax policies? What are the right investment and trade laws? What is the right support for research?  What are the right intellectual property laws, and what is the right inspirational leadership? Globalisation is like a train, only going forward, not backward. Krueger (Bordo et al., 2003) contrasts the pre-1914 globalisation era with the present one and argues that although the success of Germany in the pre-1914 era relied much less on access to the global economy, today’s stars such as South Korea have relied extensively on an open trading system to achieve rapid growth since the 1960s. After reviewing a variety of surveys, Archibugi et al. (1998) recognize the limitation of the knowledge in discovering the determinants of innovation, and the difficulty in both conceptualizing the technological change and measuring its impact on the economy as well as on trade.  Following their suggestions argues that much of the innovation/growth literature is at the aggregate level (macro-level) only and ignores the importance played by sectoral differences. Posted Oct 16 2009, 01:15 AM by admin Filed under: Growth, Competitiveness

• Literature Review II

  We are in the era of so-called Globalisation 3.0.  While the dynamic force in Globalisation 1.0 was countries globalising, the dynamic force in Globalisation 2.0 was companies globalizing, the dynamic force in Globalisation 3.0 is the newfound power for individuals to collaborate and compete globally (see Friedman, 2006, pp. 10).   The contemporaneous globalisation was led by General Electric and Texas Instruments back in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, with the outsourcing of information technology taking place and growing exponentially since then. We will see more of global outsourcing under way. Meanwhile Feeny, Lacity, and Willcocks (2005) point out that rather than address the challenges of poorly performing back-office operation, many companies are choosing to outsource some functions, or entire back offices to business-process outsourcing providers.   Offshoring began off as well following the opening of manufacturing factories by automobile makers like General Motor and Volks Wagon.  We will see more companies shifting their production overseas to countries like China and integrating it into their global supply chains. Parallel and with no exception to its counterparts, supply chaining emerges as a competitive advantage companies race to embrace. The columnist Friedman (2006, pp.170) raises a term ‘insourcing’, whereas UPS engineers come right inside one company; analyze its manufacturing, packaging, and delivery processes; and then design, redesign, and manage its whole global supply chain.          Bardhan (2006) argues that eliminating the trade barriers and subsidies adopted by rich countries that discriminate against products produced in the Third World would significantly improve the material welfare of the poor in the Third World.  On the one hand, Bowles (ibid.) argues that globalisation does not constrain other redistributive policies that raise efficiency, so a redistribution of assets such as land may provide the poor with sufficient wealth to gain access to credit markets that were previously closed, enabling the poor to borrow and invest. On the other hand, in exploring the consequences of globalisation on the range of policy choices, Przeworski and Meseguer (2006) note that discontent with globalisation stems not from the absence of choice, but from the fact that none of the feasible choices provide full compensation for the victims of globalisation.      As discussed by Archibugi and Immariono (2001), neither does the globalizing process provide advantages to all social groups and regions and it does not automatically reduce disparities. While some parts of the economy are at the core of the current trends, others have been marginalized.  Surveying the impact of globalisation on poverty in poor and middle-income countries, Bardhan (2006) concludes that most of the economic constraints facing the poor in low- and middle-income countries have little to do with globalisation and much to do with domestic institutions. Posted Oct 16 2009, 01:05 AM by admin Filed under: Offshoring, Outsourcing, Insourcing, Globalisation 3.0

• Literature Review I

  This review of literature begins with a series of books on technology and globalisation edited by Daniele Archibugi, Jonathan Michie, and Jeremy Howells (1997, 1998, and 1999). According to Avgerou (2003), IS innovation is the perpetual re-making of ICT (Internet and Communication Technologies) artefacts and organizational practice in specific social settings. In her empirical, interpretive study of FRIENDS project in Kerala, India, Madon (2003) points out, ‘IS innovation is always shaped within specific, historically-developed social contexts’. Innovation is taking place every day, especially among institutions adopting the globalisation of technology. Looking at the big Internet players now, it is the investors like venture-capitalist firms who support the initial concept of idea, rather than the nation-state although governments have fundamental and non-replaceable roles in supporting technical change.  It’s known that innovation and its policies have long focused on the supply side, neglecting the importance of demand side (Pianta 1998; Swann 1998; Edquist 2001). Users, the customers who exchange the information with business institutions over the web on a daily basis, have brought in demand as an important determinant of innovation and have played a crucial role in shaping technology in the past decade, when business firms along with public institutions such as universities and research centres play a crucial role in fostering technological advance.  As the world globalises further, more and more collaboration tools get distributed and commoditized. This newfound power can be found ubiquitously, as in the open-source software communities such as Linux, OpenOffice and Mozilla’s Firefox, and as in online communities like Wikipedia. Among the big media groups are BBC, MSNBC, and the Guardian to allow the individuals, the citizens, to contribute their stories, photos, and videos taken from their digital devices, on July 7th, 2005, the day of London’s underground bombings. (Friedman, 2006)         Avgerou (2003) raises that the shift to buy-in-the-market from built-in-house has transformed the facet of IT development from life-cycle model to implementation-oriented process. With this view, Cornford (2003) argues that the development activity per se is no longer about making something specific for specific organizational or social context, but rather is inherently generic and comprises weak links to the localized context. Not only does novel development shape the technology, but also provide a situation that implicitly helps to facilitate the convergence to globalisation. This is an example of technology shaping globalisation.   Given Mitev’s case study (2004), which interprets the troubled adoption of the “Sabre” computer reservation system (CSR) by France in 1990s, we are unable, or unwilling, to deny that ICT cannot benefit us all, if to the same degree, partly due to the fact that we do not live in a same, equal world, as each individual country is different to some extent (i.e., different structure, different systems); however, with which, governments should therefore customise universalist theory to fit their own needs in embracing globalisation and implementing ICT.   To borrow from Monteiro (2004), in getting much detailed, empirical work relative to mobile phones, there have been some questions to ask: how are phones used symbolically to gesture membership to certain communities?  In what ways do phones express and present externalized images of identity?  What does the compact and abbreviated language that teenagers use for messages signify? Speaking of the ‘use’ of the Internet, Monteiro (2004) conceptualises it as one of many manifestations whereby we present ourselves. He suggests that the Internet, outpacing the traditional Computer Supported Cooperative Working (CSCW), in some aspects forms identity and self-presentation different from strategic/goal-oriented behavior embedded in the way IS is implemented. Posted Oct 16 2009, 12:50 AM by admin Filed under: Mobile Phone, ICT, IT, Internet