ABSTRACT
The national innovation system (NIS) approach has been one of the most influential in seeking to understand the innovation trajectories of countries (Lundvall et al. 2002). It is recognition that innovation needs to be understood as part of a broader social, economic, technological and political system. The concept emphasizes that while globalization and ‘external international connections are of growing importance, the influence of a country’s education system, industrial relations, technical and scientific institutions, government policies, cultural traditions and many other national institutions is fundamental’ (Freeman 1995: 5). However, this notion is not new, and as some of the more influential authors on the concept (e.g. Lundvall 1992; Lundvall et al. 2002) acknowledge, the idea actually goes back at least to Friedrich List’s conception of the National System of Political Economy (1856 [org. 1841]). The latter ‘advocated not only protection of infant industries but a broad range of policies designed to accelerate, or to make possible, industrialisation and economic growth. Most of these policies were concerned with learning about new technology and applying it’ (cited in Freeman 1995: 5), which would now likely be termed ‘The National System of Innovation’. Freeman (1968: 58) himself used the term in 1968:
The rate of technological change in any country and the effectiveness of companies in world competition in international trade in goods and services, does not depend simply on the scale of their research and development . . . It depends on the way in which the available resources are managed and organized, both at the enterprise and national level. The national system of innovation may enable a country with limited resources . . . to make progress through appropriate combination of imported technology and local adaptation and improvement.
