This study examines the impact of governmental interventions on the performance of local innovation through technological leapfrogging. Local innovation is defined under the framework of Schumpeterian innovation, encompassing the emergence of high-tech de-novo firms. Additionally, we investigate the potential correlation between national R&D investment and the emergence rate of de-novo firms in a specific region. To test this hypothesis, we analysed the effects of a nationwide scheme in China known as the Jingjinji project; the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Joint Development Project, on the formation of de-novo firms dedicated to cutting-edge technologies. We employed panel data from 212 locales in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei to evaluate the policies’ impact on Hebei’s innovation, as well as the role played by government R&D investment. Based on the difference-in-difference results, the Jingjinji project was found to have a statistically significant positive impact on innovation. However, the emergence of de-novo firms had a negative impact on the project’s success due to decreased R&D investment. This study emphasises the significance of government intervention in promoting local innovation, not only in China but also in other nations.
AndersonP., & TushmanM. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604–633.
3.
AngristJ. D., & PischkeJ. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
4.
ArikanA. T. (2009). Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 658–676.
5.
BaumannJ., & KritikosA. S. (2016). The link between R&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different?Research Policy, 45(6), 1263–1274.
6.
Bilbao-OsorioB., & Rodríguez-PoseA. (2004). From R&D to innovation and economic growth in the EU. Growth Change, 35(4), 434–455.
7.
BoluW. (1998). The difficulty and realistic way of sustainable development. World Environment, 2, 31–34.
8.
BurlamaquiL., & KattelR. (2016). Development as leapfrogging, not convergence, not catch-up: Towards Schumpeterian theories of finance and development. Review of Political Economy, 28(2), 270–288.
9.
BurkettP., & Hart-LandsbergM. (2003). A critique of “catch-up” theories of development. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 33(2), 147–171.
10.
ChenD., & Li-HuaR. (2011). Modes of technological leapfrogging: Five case studies from China. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28(1–2), 93–108.
11.
CheonA., & UrpelainenJ. (2012). Oil prices and energy technology innovation: An empirical analysis. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 407–417.
12.
CrevoisierO., & MaillatD. (1991). Milieu, industrial organization and territorial production system: Towards a new theory of spatial development. In CamagniR. (Ed.), Innovation networks: Spatial perspectives (pp. 13–34). Belhaven Press.
13.
DavisonR., VogelD., HarrisR., & JonesN. (2000). Technology leapfrogging in developing countries—An inevitable luxury?The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 1(1), 1–10.
14.
EtzkowitzH., & ZhouC. (2017). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.
15.
FragkandreasT. (2013). When innovation does not pay off: Introducing the European regional paradox. European Planning Studies, 21(12), 2078–2086.
16.
FudenbergD., GilbertE., StiglitzJ., & TiroleJ. (1983). Preemption, leapfrogging and competition in patent races. European Economic Review, 22(1), 3–31.
17.
HannanM. T., & FreemanJ. (1989). Organizational ecology. Harvard University Press.
18.
JacobssonS., & RickneA. (2004). How large is the Swedish ‘academic’ sector really?: A critical analysis of the use of science and technology indicators. Research Policy, 33(9), 1355–1372.
19.
JacobssonS., Lindholm-DahlstrandÅ., & ElgL. (2013). Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak?—A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses. Research Policy, 42(4), 874–885.
20.
KanK. (2016). Jing–Jin–Ji: Integrating a Chinese megapolis. World Policy Journal, 33(2), 5–10.
21.
KhessinaO. M., & CarrollG. R. (2008). Product demography of de novo and de alio firms in the optical disk drive industry, 1983–1999. Organization Science, 19(1), 25–38.
22.
KimM. (2020). Cross-industry distribution of R&D investments and economic growth. Applied Economics Letter, 27(8), 679–684.
23.
KulickeM., BayerK., BraeunlingG., EwersH. J., GerybadzeA., MayerM., MuellerR., WeinT., & WupperfeldU. (1993). Chancen und Risiken junger Technologieunternehmen: Ergeb-nisse des Modellversuchs ‘Foerderung technologieorientierter Unternehmensgruendungen’. Schriftenreihe des Fraunhofer-In-stituts fuer Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung ŽISI.
24.
KumarR., & RajT. (2019). Role of entrepreneurship in boosting economic growth and employment in India. Small Enterprises Development, Management & Extension Journal, 46(4), 273–281.
25.
LeeK. (2005). A reconceptualisation of technology pursuit theory that synthesizes different approaches in technological economics [Policy Papers of the Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Vol. 2005–17], pp. 5–17 (in Korean).
26.
LeeK. (2021). The challenges of technology and economic catch-up in emerging economies. Oxford University Press.
27.
LichtG., & NerlingerE. (1998). New technology-based firms in Germany: A survey of the recent evidence. Research Policy, 26(9), 1005–1022.
28.
LiuJ., & FuL. P. (2013). Technological leapfrogging ability study and policy suggestion for strategic new industries. In The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 293–301). Springer.
29.
LorenzenM., & MaskellP. (2004). The cluster as a nexus of knowledge creation. In CookeP. & PiccalugaA. (Eds.), Regional economies as knowledge laboratories (pp. 77–92). Edward Elgar.
30.
MaennigW., & ÖlschlägerM. (2011). Innovative milieux and regional competitiveness: The role of Association and Chambers of Commerce and industry in Germany. Regional Studies, 45(4), 441–452.
31.
MckendrickD. G., & CarrollG. R. (2001). Genesis from the of evidence forms: Organizational market disk arrays. Organization Science, 12(6), 661–682.
32.
MethéD. T., ToyamaR., & MiyabeJ. (1997). Product development strategy and organizational learning: A tale of two PC makers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(5), 323–336.
33.
MiyazakiK., & IslamN. (2007). Nanotechnology systems of innovation: An analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation, 27, 661–675.
34.
MotoyamaY., AppelbaumR., & ParkerR. (2011). The national nanotechnology initiative: Federal support for science and technology, or hidden industrial policy?Technology in Society, 33(1–2), 109–118.
MuQ., & LeeK. (2005). Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy, 34(6), 759–783.
37.
NelsonR. R., & WinterS. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
38.
OinasP., & MaleckiE. J. (2002). The evolution of technologies in time and space: From national and regional to spatial innovation systems. International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 102–131.
39.
RostowW. (1960). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge University Press.
40.
SamimiA. J., & AlerasoulS. M. (2009). R&D and economic growth: new evidence from some developing countries. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(4), 3464–3469.
41.
SarangeeK. R., & EchambadiR. (2014). Firm-specific determinants of product line technology strategies in high technology markets. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(2), 149–166.
42.
SaxenianA. L. (1994). Regional advantage. Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press.
43.
SinghJ. P. (1999). Leapfrogging development?: The political economy of telecommunications restructuring. State University of New York Press.
44.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Harvard University Press.
45.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper.
46.
ShapiraP., YoutieJ., & KayL. (2011). National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 587–604.
47.
StinchcombeA. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In MarchJ. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally.
48.
SuB. (2017). Pensions and household consumption in rural China. China Agricultural Economic Review, 9(4), 522–534.
49.
The Reut Institute. (2011). How to catalyze a leapfrog in Israel?Report of the Israel 2011 Conference. https://reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationID=3968
50.
TunaK., KayacanE., & BektasH. (2015). The relationship between research & development expenditures and economic growth: The case of Turkey. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 501–507.
51.
UlkuH. (2004). R&D, innovation, and economic growth: An empirical analysis (No. 4–185). International Monetary Fund.
52.
Ürge-VorsatzD., MiladinovaG., & PaizsL. (2006). Energy in transition: From the iron curtain to the European Union. Energy Policy, 34(15), 2279–2297.
53.
WinieckiJ. (Ed.). (1996). The sources of economic success: Eliminating barriers to human entrepreneurship—A Hayekian lesson in spontaneous development, five years after June: The Polish transformation, 1989–1994 (pp. 40–49).
54.
WoolleyJ. L., & RottnerR. M. (2008). Innovation policy and nanotechnology entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 791–811.
55.
YuH., DeveceC., MartinezJ. M. G., & XuB. (2021). An analysis of the paradox in R&D. Insight from a new spatial heterogeneity model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165, 120471.
56.
ZhaoA., WangJ., & GuanH. (2022). Has the free trade zone construction promoted the upgrading of the city’s industrial structure?Sustainability, 14(9), 5482.
57.
ZuckerL. G., & DarbyM. R. (1995). Virtuous circles of productivity: Star bioscientists and the institutional transformation of industry [National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5342].
