Technological Catch-up by East Asian Firms: Trends, Issues, and Future Research Agenda

Abstract

This paper reviews extant research on technological catch-up of East Asian firms, which has recently emerged as an important issue. We review 76 articles on technological catch-up in the East Asian context published in 17 journals over 23 years (1995-2017), covering the academic disciplines of strategic management, international business, entrepreneurship, technology and innovation management, and economics. Based on a systematic analysis of this literature, we develop an overarching framework to this topic. We then identify the major gaps in the literature and suggest areas for future research on technological catch-up of Asian firms. 3

Full text

1
Forthcoming in
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management
, 2018
Technological Catch-up by East Asian Firms:
Trends, Issues, and Future Research Agenda
February 2018
Yuzhe Miao
Assistant Professor, Sungkyunkwan University
Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 110-745, South Korea
Jaeyong Song*
Amorepacific Chaired Professor, Graduate School of Business
Seoul National University; Email: jsong@snu.ac.kr
Keun Lee
Professor, Department of Economics
Seoul National University; Email: kenneth@snu.ac.kr
Chuyue Jin
PhD candidate, Graduate School of Business
Seoul National University

2
Abstract
This paper reviews extant research on technological catch-up of East Asian firms,
which has recently emerged as an important issue. We review 76 articles on
technological catch-up in the East Asian context published in 17 journals over 23 years
(1995–2017), covering the academic disciplines of strategic management, international
business, entrepreneurship, technology and innovation management, and economics.
Based on a systematic analysis of this literature, we develop an overarching framework
to this topic. We then identify the major gaps in the literature and suggest areas for
future research on technological catch-up of Asian firms.

3
1. Introduction
In most technology-intensive industries, American, European, and Japanese firms
are the leaders. Given their high technological capabilities, firms from these countries
have been recognized as global technology incumbents for many years. Firms in
emerging Asian economies are behind these leading firms in most technological fields.
However, in recent decades, major firms in Asian economies such as those in South
Korea, Taiwan, and China have rapidly enhanced their own technological capabilities,
catching up with or even leapfrogging over incumbents from advanced countries in
certain technological fields and industries.
As powerful proof of this shift, we have only to look at patent records from the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patent records show a distinct trend since
the end of the 1970s, at which time Asian economies had been granted very few patents
However, the number of patents has increased exponentially in three East Asian
countries since the late 1980s in Korea and Taiwan and since the turn of the 21st century
in the case of China (see Figure 1). Over time, some Asian companies (e.g., Samsung,
LG, and Hyundai-Kia Motors in Korea, MediaTek and AUO in Taiwan, and Huawei in
China) have shown that under certain conditions, technological laggards can overcome
disadvantages and use latecomer-specific advantages to catch up with incumbent, first-
mover firms in developed countries.
***Insert Figure 1 here***
As technological catch-up of Asian laggards has become more and more prevalent,

4
extensive economic research has been conducted on the factors influencing catch-up at
the country and industry levels (e.g., Hu & Mathews, 2005; Lee & Lim, 2001; Park &
Lee, 2006). At the same time, strategic management and international business scholars
have studied how Asian technological laggard firms have successfully competed with
incumbents in advanced countries at the firm level (Cho, Kim, & Rhee, 1998; Fan, 2006;
Lee & Lim, 2001; Li & Kozhikode, 2008; Mathews, 2002; Mathews & Cho, 1999; Park
& Lee, 2006). Many studies have devoted attention to emerging companies from Asian
countries because the rapidly developed technological capabilities of these national
champions have enabled them to close the technological gap with incumbent leaders in
advanced and industrialized economies. For example, Samsung Electronics of South
Korea captured 24.8% of the global smartphone market in 2015 compared to 17.5% of
the market occupied by Apple. The company has emerged as a leader in the global
electronics industry, outperforming Japanese companies such as Sony (Khanna, Song,
& Lee, 2011; Song, Lee, & Khanna, 2016). Most recently, Huawei of China emerged
as a leader in the telecommunications equipment industry, surpassing Ericsson and
Cisco Systems in sales. The incredible success of these Asian companies in terms of
technological catch-up has gained attention from practitioners and academics all over
the world.
However, it is difficult to generalize findings based on these studies. Existing
literature employed various theories ranging from Schumpeterian economics to the
resource-based view, from a learning perspective to an institutional view. These studies
also used various methodologies including case studies, empirical analyses, and

5
simulations to examine technological catch-up at different levels of analysis.
Most extant studies lack comprehensive frameworks and systematic and rigorous
analyses. As a result, our understanding of why some previous laggards manage to catch
up successfully while others fail to do so is still limited. Thus, we believe it is timely to
review extant studies of technological catch-up critically and offer a comprehensive
framework by synthesizing various conceptual and empirical approaches. This review
also provides practical implications for policy makers in emerging countries. In this
paper, we initially review extant research on technological catch-up of Asian firms. In
the process of searching for relevant papers, we discovered that most research has been
focused on East Asian economies, especially Korea, Taiwan, and China. This is
understandable given that firms from these countries are catching up quickly with firms
in developed countries. Therefore, we include studies representative of technological
catch-up in the East Asian context (especially Korea, China, and Taiwan) in this study.
We analyze studies on technological catch-up of Asian firms in terms of theory,
data, and methodology. We found a lack of systematic theoretical background in
existing literature, especially studies in the area of management. We also found that
most firm-level studies used case analysis, which makes it difficult for authors to
generalize findings to other contexts. Recently, however, researchers began to use
patent data to examine technological catch-up. We therefore identified key factors or
boundary conditions that influence successful catch-up based on findings of these
existing studies.

6
After an extensive review of the extant literature, we provided an integrated
framework in order to link these extant studies and synthesize their findings. We
classified the antecedents of technological catch-up in existing studies into different
categories in terms of external and internal factors. We also identified and discussed
major issues for each category. We then pinpointed various research gaps for each issue
and suggested agendas for future research. We called for future research that can
examine technological catch-up in multi-disciplinary studies using several methods,
using the contingency viewpoint to examine how different factors interact with each
other to influence technological catch-up in different contexts.
2. Scope and Method of Literature Review
2.1 Defining technological catch-up
The concept of catch-up has a long history, including the famous work of
Gerschenkron (1962). It was popularized first among development economists in
Abramowitz’s (1986) influential article (“Catching up, forging ahead, and falling
behind”) was published. Nowadays, economic scholars tend to define catch-up as a
narrowing of the gap in productivity and income between a leading country and a
lagging country (Fagerberg & Godinho, 2005). It has also been described as a process
by which a late-developing country narrows the income gap (“economic catch-up”) and
increases its technological capability (“technological catch-up”) vis-à-vis a leading
country (Odagiri, Goto, Sunami, & Nelson, 2010). These studies suggest that catch-up

7
may be measured using several indicators such as income, productivity, and
technological capability according to the purpose of the research (Lee, 2013). Our
primary focus is on the technological aspects of catch-up, defined as substantial
improvement of technological capabilities by firms from technologically lagging
countries in their process of closing the gap with incumbents in advanced countries,
thereby approaching the global technological frontier. In some cases, the process is still
ongoing as latecomers are gaining ground vis-à-vis incumbents or leaders; however,
cases do exist of already finished or completed catch-up, which is equivalent to
convergence or overtaking. In this review paper, we take a broad and flexible approach
considering both the consequences and ongoing process of technological catch-up. For
example, we include articles that investigate not only cases of aborted catch-up, but
also cases of leapfrogging, the latter of which can be considered as one variant of catch-
up strategy, possibly leading to different outcomes. We believe this broad definition of
technological catch-up facilitates understanding of this research topic.
In this study, we also investigate the linkage between timing of economic and
technological catch-up and market catch-up, hypothesizing that technological catch-up
may precede or lead to market catch-up (Lee & Lim, 2001). In the past, many stories
of catch-up in Asia were about low-cost-based catch-up in terms of market shares rather
than technological capability-based catch-up. However, more recently, Asian catch-up
has involved firms equipped with advanced technologies allowing them to overtake
industry forerunners.
Researchers have studied technological catch-up in two distinct but related

8
disciplines: management (at the firm level) and economics (at the country or industry
level). We first review studies from different disciplines, showing trends in theoretical
background, the nature of the used data, and the chosen research methodologies. Then,
we discuss the main findings in the literature, identifying key factors or boundary
conditions that affect more or less successful catch-up, trying to answer the question of
why some firms are able to close the technological gap with incumbent leaders or even
overtake global leaders, while other laggard firms are not. This review of studies from
diverse theoretical perspectives on catch-up at both the macro and micro levels will
help researchers in management understand the phenomenon of technological catch-up
of East Asian laggard firms more comprehensively.
2.2 Research methods
We employed a series of scientific research methods for a systematic literature
review (Gaur and Kumar, 2016). First, to set the stage for this review of the literature,
we selected major journals in the fields of economics and management, where catch-
up is of greatest interest. To ensure complete coverage of technological catch-up
literature across different scholarly fields, we examined 78 journals ranked as above
level 3 in the ABS journal lists from 7 areas: general management, innovation,
international business and area studies, organization studies, strategy, entrepreneurship
and small business management, and economics. We report the specific journals we
searched in Table 1.
***Insert Table 1 about here***

9
We searched for articles using keywords based on the definition of catch-up and
related topics. Because technological catch-up is defined as substantial improvement of
technological capabilities by firms from technologically lagging countries in the
process of closing the gap with incumbents in advanced countries, thereby approaching
the global technological frontier, we selected the following keywords to search articles:
catch(ing) up, laggard, latecomer, follower, first (second) mover, leapfrogging,
springboard, technological upgrading, learning, knowledge transfer, knowledge
sourcing, and imitation. We also used keywords related to geography in East Asia and
Asia. We first identified articles with these words appearing in the title, abstract, or
subject terms in the EBSCOhost, JSTOR, Wiley-Blackwell, ProQuest, ScienceDirect,
and SAGE Journals Online databases. This searching process initially generated 642
articles. However, among these articles, many were not associated with technological
catch-up. Therefore, we narrowed our search further, reading only those articles whose
topics were closely associated with technological catch-up in the Asian context,
excluding those unrelated to this topic. The publication years of these articles ranged
from 1995 to 2017. This search process generated 76 articles in total. The following
analysis is mainly based on these 76 articles.
3. Results of Literature Review
3.1 Overall trends
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the selected publications by year. From the figure,
we noted that the number of articles on this topic increased continually since the 1990s,

10
especially after 2010. The distribution of these articles is highly skewed across journals.
Table 2 lists where and when the 76 articles were published. Table 3 summarizes the
research disciplines in which the articles were published. Most of these articles were
published in the areas of economics and management of innovation. Specifically, about
43.24% of these studies were published in economics journals, 40.79% in innovation
journals, 9.21% in international business studies journals, 2.61% in organization studies
journals, 2.61% in strategy journals, and 1.32% in general management journals. This
suggests that catch-up-related research is still needed in other disciplinary areas such as
international business, organizational strategy, and others.
***Insert Figure 2 and Tables 2 and 3 here***
We found that most of the articles focus on the East Asian context, especially
Korea, Taiwan, and China. Technological catch-up studies focusing on these three East
Asian countries account for more than 81% of the selected articles in our literature
review (see Table 7). This is understandable given the dramatic economic growth in
these countries. Thus, in the review process, we focus on the East Asian context,
especially Korea, Taiwan, and China. In the following section, we analyze the articles
in terms of theoretical background, research methodology, and main findings.
3.2 Theoretical background
Table 4 shows the theoretical foundations of the articles included in the study. Given
that a substantial number of studies (58%, 44 articles) did not specify the theories

11
employed, we suggest that future researchers should attempt to strengthen the
theoretical foundations in this research field. Among studies in which theories were
specified, most studies (13% of all articles that we reviewed) adopted theories of
learning, absorptive capacity, and technological capability. About 11.8% of studies were
written based on Schumpeterian economics, including the neo-Schumpeterian
economic view (3.95%), the sectoral innovation system perspective (5.26%), and the
global system view (2.63%). About 5.3% of articles used evolutionary theory as the
main theoretical foundation. Other theories included the timing of entry and the
latecomer advantage perspective (3.95%) and the resource- or knowledge-based view
(3.95%). Finally, a few studies used cluster theory, the theory of agglomeration
economies, or institutional theory, which we classified as a miscellaneous category
(3.95%) in this paper.
From this review of the theoretical background of these articles, we found that the
theoretical contribution of existing studies regarding technological catch-up is still
weak especially in the area of management compared to that of economics, where the
theories of catch-up are relatively well developed. A substantial number of management
studies lacked a clear theoretical background; therefore, their theoretical contributions
are uncertain. Thus, it is important for future researchers to develop a systematic theory
of technological catch-up.
***Insert Table 4 here***
3.3 Research method

12
3.3.1 Research methodologies
We also identified the major research methodologies used in each study and
classified them into four categories: qualitative, quantitative, simulation, and
conceptual. Some researchers used multiple research methodologies. For instance, a
few articles used case analysis, but supplemented with a simple data analysis. In such
cases, we identified the primary research method for the purposes of classification.
Those that used case analysis as the major methodology were defined as qualitative
studies, while those in which an empirical data analysis was conducted were defined as
quantitative studies. In a few studies, simulation was the major research method. We
also found a few studies that provided conceptual research frameworks. Table 5
summarizes the research methodologies: qualitative case studies (27.63%), quantitative
empirical research (63.16%), simulation (5.26%), and conceptual papers (3.95%).The
large volume of early literature on firm-level catch-up is impressive. Many studies take
the form of in-depth case studies of Asian firms that have achieved successful catch-up
(e.g., Cho et al., 1998; Fan, 2006; Kim, 1998; Mathews, 2006) or theoretical papers that
propose conceptual frameworks of latecomer strategies (e.g., Kim, 1999; Li &
Kozhikode, 2008; Mathews, 2002). A representative paper is Mathews (2002)
published in APJM. Mathews (2002) synthesized the findings of extant studies and
proposed a conceptual framework of catch-up by latecomer firms from the resource-
based viewpoint. Mathews’ seminal piece sparked a number of studies on latecomer
firms, especially those based in China. In sum, firm-level studies of catch-up started
with a series of case studies.

13
Based on our examination of these case studies, we observed that some scholars,
such as Mathews (2002) and Li and Kozhikode (2008), proposed conceptual models
for latecomer firms’ catch-up. After the publication of these conceptual works, an
increase was evident in firm-level studies of catch-up using diverse methodologies,
ranging from case studies of wider scope to quantitative studies and, more recently,
patent data analyses. Recently, catch-up studies using patent data have become more
prominent. In addition, most technological catch-up studies conducted at the country or
industry levels used quantitative methods with patent data. However, few studies used
the simulation method. Despite the difficulties of conducting an empirical analysis due
to paucity of data, we encourage future firm-level research on catch-up using
simulations.
***Insert Table 5 here***
3.3.2 Data and measurement
Most empirical studies included in this review utilized patent data. Among the articles,
32.9% of them (25 studies) were based on patent analysis, which seems to be an
important trend in studies examining catch-up or the relationship between catch-up and
performance. Studies using patent data to examine catch-up mainly utilized the USPTO
database. Not surprisingly, most studies using patent data focused on firms in high-tech
industries. We report the distribution of these studies by industry and country in Tables
5 and 6. In terms of industry, the semiconductor industry, the telecommunications

14
industry, the automobile industry, and the electronics industry accounted for 10.47%,
10.4%, 9.3%, and 3.49% of the firms in these studies, respectively. Most of these
articles focused on three East Asian countries: Korea (36.59%), China (29.03%), and
Taiwan (16.13%).
***Insert Tables 6 and 7 here***
One of the recent trends in firm-level quantitative studies is the use of patent
citation data. A major theme in this stream of studies is the comparison between
latecomer firms, which attempt to catch up, and incumbent firms as their targets. For
instance, Lee (2013) made a large-scale comparison of the technological characteristics
of latecomer firms with those in an advanced economy. He found that Korean firms
were inferior to U.S. firms in many respects, such as the number of patents and their
quality, originality, and diversity (i.e., the scope of patenting was more diverse in U.S.
firms). In addition, the self-citation ratio was high in U.S. firms. However, Korean firms
tended to have patents with shorter cycle times compared to those of U.S. firms. Given
that firm growth was significantly related to the investment ratio in Korean firms, Lee
(2013) suggested that latecomer firms should pursue growth by borrowing and
investing more while specializing in short-cycle technology-based sectors. Among the
empirical studies examined herein, most (80%) used patent data to measure catch-up.
Technological catch-up was mostly measured as the number of patents. Other studies,
such as Park and Lee (2006), measured catch-up using the patent growth rate and total
productivity. Although patent stock may reflect technological capabilities of firms, we
suggest that the patent growth rate better and more accurately captures the concept of

15
catch-up. We encourage authors of future studies to operationalize technological catch-
up using comparative and dynamic measures.
The next section presents an integrated framework of technological catch-up,
based on a more detailed review of key findings in the literature.
3.4 A comprehensive framework of technological catch-up
Witnessing the rapid economic growth achieved by newly industrialized
economies such as those in South Korea and Taiwan and, more recently, China,
economists have studied how these Asian countries successfully caught up with leading
countries in technology-intensive industries. Scholars have attempted to solve the
puzzle of why some companies were successful in technological catch-up with
developed countries, while others were not.
Based on the literature review herein, we present a comprehensive framework of
the antecedents for technological catch-up, which includes both external and internal
factors (Figure 4). Because this paper aims to give implications from the point of view
of firms, we identify external factors as those that examine environmental effects on
catch-up, which include industry- and country-level factors. We identify internal factors
as those of firm-level factors. Then, in the next section (Section 4. Future research
agenda), we discuss the gaps in existing literature and a possible future research agenda.
***Insert Figure 4 here***
3.4.1 External factors influencing technological catch-up

16
External environmental factors as antecedents of technological catch-up can be
classified into those related to the (1) institutional environment and those related to the
(2) technology regime.
3.4.1.1 Institutional environment
Among the reviewed articles, several studies investigated the influence of
institutional conditions, national innovation capability, and science and public
institutions on successful catch-up as well as the role of government policy in shaping
such institutional factors. Most of these studies were conducted at the country level.
They recognize that while firms in different countries that achieve successful catch-up
may share some common features, there are also substantial variations in the
institutional conditions in which they operate. For example, by analyzing USPTO
patent data granted to firms in 16 different countries, Hu and Mathews (2005) found
that firms in East Asian countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and
China were more focused on development of the institutional foundations of national
innovative capacity, targeted more specific sectors, and more often specialized their
innovation activities in these sectors compared to firms in a reference group of
comparable countries. Similarly, Wang and Tsai (2010) and Park and Lee (2006)
compared different innovation patterns and institutional contexts between firms in
Korea and Taiwan by analyzing USPTO patent data. They demonstrated that
technological catch-up in Taiwan contributed to dispersion of SMEs, while in Korea,
the major players were a few relatively large conglomerates.

17
Furman and Hayes (2004) empirically examined national innovation-related
productivity based on a panel dataset of 23 countries operating between 1978 and 1999,
revealing that emerging innovators had made the change from imitation to innovation
with the help of government innovation-enhancing policies and investment in physical
and human capital over time. Bernardes and Albuquerque (2003) suggested that for
technological development in less-developed countries, science plays an important role
in cultivating absorptive capacity; thus, establishing scientific institutions should be
seen as a vital component of industrial policy in these countries. Similarly, Mazzoleni
and Nelson (2007) argued that public research institutions contribute to economic
catch-up based on cases studies across countries, such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Brazil,
and the U.S. Mazzoleni (2008) reviewed the history of successful national catch-up in
Germany, Japan, the U.S., Korea, and Taiwan and highlighted the role of academic
institutions in the process of technological development despite variations in historical
context and local conditions.
3.4.1.2 Technological regime
In addition to institutional factors, some studies stress the importance of
technological regime (i.e., changes in technological environment (Nelson and Winter,
1982)) for the success of technological catch-up. This stream of literature suggests that
firms should take advantage of exogenous opportunities and choose appropriate
technological fields.
The concept of the technological regime was connected to the concept of the

18
sectoral system of innovation in many studies explaining how firms in laggard countries
achieve catch-up in certain sectors. Early studies along this line took the form of case
studies, such as that of Lee and Lim (2001), who explained that sector-level variations
in catch-up patterns were partly determined by the technological regimes in which these
industries operated, and characteristics such as cumulativeness of technical advances,
predictability of technological trajectory, and the properties of the knowledge base all
played a role. Park and Lee (2006) examined the relationship between the technological
regime and the occurrence and speed of technological catch-up by Korean and
Taiwanese firms using USPTO patent data. They found that catch-up is more likely to
occur in technological classes with shorter technological cycle times and larger initial
knowledge stocks, while the speed of catch-up depends on appropriability and
knowledge accessibility.
Recently, Landini, Lee, and Malerba (2016) developed a history-friendly model to
explore the conditions within which catch-up cycles are more likely to occur. In a
simulation analysis, they found that changes in leadership depend not only on
technological discontinuities, but also on the lock-in behavior of incumbents.
Another stream of literature stresses that firms should take advantage of “windows
of opportunity” to catch up. For example, Niosi and Reid (2007) examined whether
emerging technologies such as biotechnology and nanotechnology do indeed offer
“windows of opportunity” for less-developed countries to catch up. They found that
only three of the largest countries with emerging economies (China, India, and Brazil)
were able to take advantage of these opportunities, partly because of the size of human

19
and investment capital and government support. Notable is the example of the articles
collected in a recent special issue in Research Policy, including the leading article of
Lee and Malerba (2016). This piece identified windows of opportunity along three
dimensions (technological, demand, and institutional/policy) of a given sectoral system,
and suggested that the combination of these three dimensions determines changes in
industrial leadership. Giachetti and Marchi (2016) observed two leadership changes in
the 1990s and 2010s. They concluded that catch-up happens when a latecomer takes
aggressive competitive action at a time when windows of opportunity are open, and
they emphasized the importance of both internal efforts and external opportunities in
the catch-up process.
3.4.2 Internal factors influencing technological catch-up
While country- or sector-level studies focus on the influence of the external
environment on technological catch-up, firm-level studies focus more on internal
capability-building and strategic choice for successful catch-up. Most articles that
describe internal factors influencing technological catch-up can be grouped into two
categories. One group of studies focuses on how to build technological capability in
order to catch up, while the other focuses on catch-up strategies chosen by firms.
3.4.2.1 Building technological capability through learning as an antecedent to
catch-up
Many scholars emphasize technological innovation capability as the key for
successful catch-up, examining how firms can improve their technological capability.

20
For example, Kim (1999) presented an integrative framework to describe the process
of building technological capability based on the Korean experience, and concluded
that crisis construction was an effective mechanism that promoted Hyundai Motors’
learning and catch-up efforts. By investigating leading Chinese firms (i.e., Huawei,
ZTE, DTT, and GDT) in the telecommunications equipment industry, Fan (2006)
emphasized that lagging firms should prioritize building up of innovation capability
from the very beginning to ensure competitiveness. Li and Kozhikode (2008) put
forward a theoretical model for latecomers and suggested that successful catch-up
requires laggards to become emulators rather than blind imitators, learning about the
properties and causal mechanisms among objects. They observed firms in the mobile
phone industry in China and demonstrated that learning strategies of laggards are
influenced by the number of available complementary resources and the absorptive
capability of the firms. Using panel data from Chinese manufacturing firms, Wang, Liu,
Wei, and Wang (2014) found that catch-up is positively related to the size of the
technology gap (with industry forerunners) and firms’ technological capabilities.
Scholars have tried to explain the channels through which firms can build up their
innovation capability. The channels or methods through which technological capability
can be transferred from advanced country firms to lagging firms in Asian countries has
been a particular focus. Most of these studies focus on the complementary relationship
between development of internal capability and external knowledge transfer. Fan (2006)
concluded that lagging firms should focus on in-house R&D development to improve
innovation capability, supplementing this strategy with formation of external alliances.

21
Fu, Pietrobelli, and Soete (2011) suggested that both indigenous innovation and foreign
technology transfer contribute to technological catch-up in emerging economies,
whereas indigenous innovation matters more in advanced countries. Using USPTO
patent data of firms in the emergent solar photovoltaic industry in Taiwan, Korea, and
China, Wu and Mathews (2012) demonstrated an increasing dependence on intra-
national knowledge rather than international knowledge, indicating that the transition
from imitation to innovation is ongoing. Chen (2009) studied Taiwan’s machine tool
industry and demonstrated that informal learning through local and global knowledge
linkages played an important role in the catch-up of Taiwanese firms in low- and
medium-technology industries, criticizing high-tech industry-centered models that rely
on formal learning mechanisms.
Lee, Park, Ryu, and Baik (2010) examined the benefits of interfirm R&D
collaboration for latecomers in terms of timing. In a simulation analysis, they found
that R&D collaboration based on cost reduction did not facilitate catch-up, while R&D
collaboration for the purpose of sharing complementary resources and creating
synergies did promote catch-up. Similarly, Wang et al. (2015) examine how learning-
by-licensing helps latecomers such as Chinese firms build their technological capability.
Another stream of studies emphasizes the important role of mobility of engineers
as the channel through which firms can improve their innovation capability. Song et al.
(2003) found that international mobility of engineers facilitated catch-up of Korean and
Taiwanese firms. Similarly, Almudi, Fatas-Villafranca, and Izquierdo (2012)
highlighted the role of international mobility of scientists in the catch-up process in

22
science-based industries. More recently, Giuliani, Martinelli, and Rabellotti (2016)
found that cross-country collaborations between mobile inventors from the European
Union provided opportunities for firms from emerging countries such as China.
Though most of the studies included in this review focus on how to improve firms’
technological capability, there are a few studies in which other organizational factors
influencing technological catch-up are examined. Xiao, Tylecote, and Liu (2013)
illustrated how elements of the micro context, such as corporate governance and
financial factors, are important for successful technological catch-up. Comparing
leading Chinese automobile groups, Nam (2015) found that coordination and resource-
sharing among affiliated firms contributed to technological catch-up of business groups
from emerging economies. More research must be conducted to investigate how other
organizational factors can affect technological catch-up.
3.4.2.2 Catch-up strategies
Many case or simulation studies have been conducted to determine distinctive
catch-up patterns and strategies. Lee and Lim (2001) analyzed the relationship between
catch-up and firm performance in six selected industries in Korea. Three different
patterns of catch-up were identified: path-creating catch-up (e.g., the CDMA mobile
phone), stage-skipping catch-up (e.g., D-RAM and the automobile), and path-following
catch-up (e.g., consumer electronics, personal computers, and machine tools).
Other studies at the firm level looked at organizational or strategic factors that help
firms overcome latecomer disadvantages and/or maximize latecomer advantages. For

23
example, Cho et al. (1998) investigated how Korean firms caught up with Japanese
firms in the semiconductor industry by overcoming certain latecomers’ disadvantages
(such as a thin margin and volume building) and maximizing latecomers’ advantages
(such as time compression, technology transfer, and resource leveraging). Mathews and
Cho (1999) developed a model for latecomers’ entry strategies including single- and
double-loop strategies that involve leverage of external resources and combinative
capabilities.
Choung, Hwang, and Song (2014) identified three different evolutionary patterns
in innovative activities in the post-catch-up period in Korea, namely deepening process
innovation, architectural innovation, and radical innovation, which depend on the
timing of laggards’ entry in the product life cycle.
Lee and Ki (2016) examined the reasons behind the shift in leadership from the
United States to Japan and subsequently from Japan to Korea, contending that the
emergence of new technologies served as a window of opportunity for Japanese firms
to pursue path-creating catch-up, while Korea’s POSCO seized the opportunity during
a downturn in the global steel industry to switch its catch-up strategy from path-
following to stage-skipping.
3.4.2.3 Catch-up stages and processes
Some researchers have outlined the stages of technological catch-up in terms of
capability upgrading. For example, Kim (1997) distinguished several stages of

24
technological development by latecomers: the duplicative imitation, creative imitation,
and innovation stages.
Another series of stages is as follows: the OEM (own equipment manufacturing),
ODM (own design manufacturing), and OBM (own brand manufacturing) stages.
1
Original equipment manufacturing (OEM) is a specific form of subcontracting under
which a complete, finished product is made to exact buyer specifications. Some OEMs
evolve into own design manufacturing (ODM) firms, in which most of the detailed
product design is carried out, and the customer firms of ODM companies continue with
the marketing functions. Further, original brand manufacturing (OBM) firms engage in
manufacturing, design of new products, R&D for materials, processing of products, and
sales and distribution for their own brands. The path from OEM to ODM to OBM has
become the standard upgrading process for latecomer firms.
More recently, Choung, Ji, and Hameed (2011) described an international
standardization strategy, analyzing three Korean cases and suggesting that the phases
of latecomers’ catch-up may evolve from “adoption” to “standard setting” based on
their technological capabilities and social/institutional/economic opportunities.
4. Future Research Agenda
In this section, we continue by identifying major issues for future research on
technological catch-up by firms in East Asian economies.
1
Explanations of these three terms are provided in Hobday (1994).

25
4.1 External environments influencing technological catch-up
Environmental factors that influence catch-up are mostly examined in country- or
sector-level studies. We notice some visible changes in focus in these studies over time,
such as from earlier case studies to later quantitative studies using patent data, followed
by the emergence of simulation model studies to examine sectoral evolution. One
challenge in studying environmental factors is that there are too many factors involved
in catch-up and sectoral evolution, and it is not easy to rank them and identify the
connections among them. Also, influential factors may differ depending upon the stage
of industry evolution; for instance, during the early or emerging stage, accessibility to
or transferability of external/foreign knowledge may be more important, whereas at
later stages, tacitness and/or appropriability may be more important as determinants of
catch-up probability. The complexity of the issue seems to be one of the reasons for the
emergence of simulation-based analyses where many variables can be included.
The key question of why most cases of successful catch-up are found only in
certain East Asian economies, but not in other Asian or Latin American economies, has
been partly answered, as in Kim and Lee (2015), but still remains to be answered to a
large extent. While the intensity of innovative effort seems to be one of the
differentiating factors, we have yet to explain why other economies failed to invest
enough resources and effort toward innovation. The deep-rooted historical conditions
in various countries as well as the (in)effectiveness of the catch-up strategies
themselves require further study.

26
4.2 Learning channels and targets in the catch-up process
Existing literature illustrates many channels through which lagging firms can source
vital knowledge and upgrade their technological capability, helping them to move from
imitation to innovation. Those channels include assembly-based production, learning
by exporting, knowledge transfer via FDI, licensing, establishment of overseas R&D
outposts, joint R&D with public or foreign R&D organizations, R&D collaboration,
and mobility of engineers, through all of which Asian lagging firms have accessed
foreign technology and know-how in advanced economies (Giuliani et al., 2016;
Almudi et al., 2012; Song et al., 2003).
Although existing studies identify different means through which laggards can
learn from incumbents and improve their technological capabilities, there are still
several avenues not well examined in the existing literature. For instance, in 2002, the
Chinese government announced a new strategy for encouraging Chinese companies to
“go global” by investing abroad. Some well-known cases include Lenovo’s purchase
of the PC division of IBM in 2004, Geely’s acquisition of Volvo in 2012, and, more
recently, Tsinghua Unigroup’s aggressive serial takeover of global chip-makers.
Although M&A is often viewed as a fast way of acquiring knowledge, its effectiveness
as a method of technological catch-up is still questionable because it depends upon the
nature of the knowledge. To the extent that knowledge is tacit, simply acquiring other
firms does not guarantee automatic transfer of knowledge from them, especially if key
staff of a target firm leaves the company after acquisition. Thus, we call for both in-
depth case studies and large-scale empirical analyses that examine M&A as a learning

27
channel and catch-up method.
Research also has yet to identify the most appropriate reference organizations from
which firms can learn: incumbent firms in advanced economies or latecomers from
home or neighboring countries who succeeded in catch-up. Most existing literature
focused on how laggards learn from firms in advanced countries. We know less than
we should about how laggards can upgrade their technological capability through
learning from reference groups other than incumbent leaders (Miao, Song, & Salomon,
2015). Thus, future studies may identify and discuss not only various learning channels,
but also types of appropriate learning targets from which to upgrade their technological
capabilities in the process of catch-up.
It is also important to address the intriguing question of how to achieve
discontinuous upgrading from low-tier (or productive) skills to high-tier innovation
capabilities. Such upgrading is required to sustain catch-up or surpass incumbents.
4.3 Variations in catch-up strategies and leapfrogging
Though learning is important for laggards to upgrade their technological
capabilities, lagging firms must often utilize appropriate strategies to overcome
latecomers’ disadvantages and utilize their advantages. These strategies may differ from
those used by incumbent firms in advanced countries (Cho et al., 1998). A substantial
number of extant studies examined diverse catch-up strategies. Some argued that
latecomers may utilize their advantages of time compression, leverage of resources, and
technology transfer or learning (Cho et al., 1998; Mathews, 2002) while overcoming

28
disadvantages through a thin margin or volume building (Cho et al., 1998). By
leveraging complementary assets to adopt a new technological trajectory and develop
appropriability, Samsung caught up with Motorola in the mobile telecommunications
industry (He, Lim, & Wong, 2006). Others pointed out that laggards should be careful
not to be just blind imitators, but also to be emulators (Li & Kozhikode, 2008).
The question remains as to whether latecomers tend to catch up using similar or
different technologies from those of forerunning incumbents. Using similar
technologies implies that they simply attempt to imitate, whereas using different
technologies indicates the pursuit of new technology creation and taking a different
technological path or trajectory from those of incumbents. This contrast between
similar and different technologies is interesting in the literature on technological catch-
up. Early studies, such as Lall (2000), Kim (1980), Westphal, Kim, and Dahlman (1985),
and Hobday (1995), observed that latecomers tried to catch up with advanced countries
by assimilating and adapting the obsolete technology of incumbents. However, Lee and
Lim (2001) and Lee (2013) expressed a contrasting view: latecomers do not simply
follow previous paths of technological development; rather, they sometimes skip
certain stages or even create their own paths that differ from those of industry
forerunners.
Song and Lee (2014) suggested that Korean firms had achieved path-creating catch-
up by choosing a different path from those of forerunning Japanese firms in the digital
TV industry, taking advantage of the window of opportunity provided by a shift in the
technological paradigm from analogue to digital in the 1990s. Similarly, China also

29
experienced stage-skipping catch-up in the telecommunications industry, jumping
directly to digital automatic switches, but skipping the stage of analogue electronic
switches (Mu & Lee, 2005). Thus, future researchers should continue to search for the
best catch-up strategies in different contexts.
The leapfrogging strategy also needs further clarification. Leapfrogging always
entails either stage-skipping or path-creating. For instance, in the mobile phone
industry, Samsung forged ahead in the 2000s over Nokia. This example can be
classified as path creation because Samsung adopted Google’s Android OS for its
smartphone, which differed from Nokia’s feature phone or Symbian OS-based
smartphones (Giachetti & Marchi, 2016). Samsung also pursued path-creating
leapfrogging at the early stage of its growth, with its invention, together with
Qualcomm, of the world’s first mobile phone based on the CDMA standard, which
was unlike the TDMA–GSM standard of Nokia (Lee & Lim, 2001). Similarly,
instances of leadership change in the memory chip sector involved a stage-skipping
type of leapfrogging (or dynamic catch-up) because both Japan and South Korea
targeted next-generation chips in the catch-up process to be ahead of industry
incumbents (Shin, 2016). In the example of leadership change in the camera sector in
the 1950s, forging ahead of the Japanese became possible because Japanese companies
created a new technological path for the SLR camera (Kang & Song, 2016). In the
steel sector, the rise of Japan in the 1970s against the U.S. was definitely an example
of path creation in the adoption/follow-on innovation mode, as Japan adopted and
further improved the Austrian-invented BOF (basic oxygen furnace) method, whereas
the U.S. stuck to the old open-hearth furnace (OHF) method (Lee & Ki, 2016).
Thereafter, the rise of POSCO against Japan’s Nippon Steel was an example of stage-

30
skipping leapfrogging because the former adopted state-of-the-art technologies in its
establishment of a second mill from the mid-1980s to the 1990s.
The consensus seems to be that path creation may be a necessary condition for
leapfrogging, but it is not sufficient. However, the generalizability of this argument
must be confirmed in detailed research in future. Also, the advantages and
disadvantages of adopting this ambitious path-creating or leapfrogging strategy, the
risks involved, and management of those risks require further study. The leapfrogging
strategy has a higher chance of success when it is conducted during a shift in
technological paradigm (Perez & Soete, 1988) because all firms begin at the same
point when a new paradigm is introduced, and incumbents may be slow or reluctant to
move to the new paradigm. However, it may be difficult to recognize or identify
quickly when a new paradigm is emerging as a window of opportunity.
4.4 Stages of technological catch-up
Research suggests that latecomer firms find OEM to be an easy way of catching
up at the early stage of economic growth, but they soon face difficulties when
forerunning firms move their production to other, lower-wage production sites. Unless
these companies can eventually produce and sell their own designs and brands, they
remain in the low-value-added segments, thereby failing to catch up with industry
incumbents. Thus, few firms from developing countries make a successful transition
from OEM to the next stages of ODM or OBM. Instead, they continue to remain at the
OEM stage, restricted to their home countries. If we conceive these stages of learning
as 1) skills, 2) process technology, 3) design technology, and 4) new product
development, the transition from stage 2 to stage 3 is the most difficult. The first and

31
second stages largely correspond to the duplicative imitation and path-following stages
of catch-up, the third stage corresponds to the creative imitation and stage-skipping
stage, and the final stage to real innovation and path-creation or industry leadership.
Transition to the third stage requires learning and acquisition of design capabilities or
R&D capabilities in general. This transition is often perceived as a high entry barrier or
crisis stage in the catch-up process because latecomer firms face serious difficulty in
learning how to design and produce higher-value-added products.
Building up technological capabilities so as to move from low value-added
activities to higher valued-added activities remains an important topic for research on
catch-up. This transition does not occur automatically even if a country is open to trade
and FDI. Rather, it often involves deliberate learning and risk-taking by companies and
other public actors. The market mechanism serves not as a triggering factor, but as a
facilitating factor that stimulates risk-taking and rewards successful actors. More
research is needed on the role of government policies and institutions that help
latecomers move from the early stage to upgraded stages.
4.5 Multi-level and multi-disciplinary framework of technological catch-up
In this literature review, we identified a large number of factors related to catch-up
at all three levels -- firm, sector, or country. However, it is difficult to rank these factors
and identify connections among them. For example, some internal factors examined in
existing literature may be related to industry- or individual-level factors (e.g.,
inventor/employee mobility), or they may involve collaboration between many

32
companies (e.g., knowledge sourcing, M&A). Authors of extant studies failed to
address this multi-level issue. One constructive way to tackle this problem in future
studies would be to utilize a multi-level and multi-disciplinary framework and method,
because catch-up at each level may be influenced by variables at other levels. For
example, Jung and Lee (2010) found that sectoral-level variables affected the
probability of country-level productivity catch-up between Korea and Japan, whereas
firm-level variables affected inter-firm catch-up within countries. Further, we found
that existing literature on catch-up failed to recognize contingencies (at different levels)
that can moderate or differently shape the main relationships. Additionally, the
interaction of these variables may have played a significant role in technological catch-
up. Some recent studies such as those of Miao, Song, and Li (2016) and Lee (2013)
found that successful catch-up of laggard firms is typically achieved as a result of
interactions between strategic choices made by these firms and the environmental
conditions they encounter. How different technological regimes across sectors
influence laggard firms with different knowledge profiles and learning capabilities is a
particularly interesting research question to study further. In this study, we do not
classify the literature examined herein by level of analysis; therefore, we call for multi-
level and multi-discipline analyses of the interactions among variables. Such research
would be to verify the generalizability of the findings of previous studies using multi-
disciplinary approaches. We need more systematic, empirically-grounded insight into
the conditions under which latecomers from Asia’s emerging economies successfully
achieve catch-up and eventually overtake incumbent firms.

33
5. Summary and Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we reviewed the extant research on technological catch-up by Asian
latecomers, especially those from three East Asia countries, Korea, China, and Taiwan.
We classified existing articles in terms of theoretical background, data, and research
method. We summarized major findings and provided an integrated model of
technological catchup. We then identified research gaps and suggested future research
topics.
In terms of methodology, we found that earlier studies using qualitative or case
study methods were followed by theoretical conceptualizations of the catch-up
phenomenon and the conditions under which latecomer firms find success. Recent
research has attempted to generalize the insights of earlier studies by quantitative
analyses using larger data sets, often including patent data.
The key areas of focus have been the stages of technological catch-up, learning
channels and targets, and types of catch-up strategies (including leapfrogging). All these
issues are centered on the theme of how latecomers overcome their initial disadvantages
by learning from various targets through various channels to achieve catch-up with or
even overtake incumbents utilizing various strategies, such as stage-skipping, path-
creating, or leapfrogging. In the catch-up process, the emergence of new innovations or
techno-economic paradigms often served as a window of opportunity for latecomers,
while for incumbents, many remained locked into existing technological pathways.

34
Regarding the fundamental question of whether latecomers should use similar or
different technologies from those of the leading firms in a given industry, the consensus
seems to be that while initial catch-up starts with firms following the path of the
incumbent by learning similar technologies, eventual catch-up or overtaking seems to
require the latecomer to adopt different technologies to pursue leapfrogging or path
creation. However, given the serious risk associated with leapfrogging, we also observe
that adopting this strategy alone is not sufficient, but it may be necessary to successful
catch-up. Given that more and more Asian latecomers are succeeding in overtaking or
surpassing industry incumbents, future researchers should pay more attention to this
issue of how to implement leapfrogging strategies while minimizing risk.
Through this article, we classify existing studies based on an extensive literature
review, identify gaps in the research, and suggest areas for future research. These
recommendations may provide insight into how technological catch-up research can be
improved. though this review paper focuses on technological catch-up in East Asia, we
encourage future scholars to investigate whether the main findings and suggestions of
this study can also be applied to other geographic contexts such as other Asian areas or
other emerging economies.

35
References
Almudi, I., Fatas-Villafranca, F., & Izquierdo, L.R. 2012. Innovation, catch-up, and
leadership in science-based industries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(2):
345-375.
Bernardes, A., & Albuquerque, E. 2003. Cross-over, thresholds, and interactions
between science and technology: lessons for less-developed countries. Research
Policy, 32(5): 865–885.
Chen, L. 2009. Learning through informal local and global linkages: The case of
Taiwan's machine tool industry. Research Policy, 38(3):527-535.
Cho, D.S., Kim, D.J., & Rhee, D.K. 1998. Latecomer strategies: Evidence from the
semiconductor industry in Japan and Korea. Organization Science, 9(4): 489-505.
Choung, J.Y., Hwang, H.R., & Song, W. 2014. Transitions of innovation activities in
latecomer countries: an exploratory case study of South Korea. World Development,
54: 156-167.
Choung, J. Y., Ji, I., & Hameed, T. 2011. International standardization strategies of
latecomers: the cases of Korean Tpeg, T-Dmb, and binary CDMA. World
Development, 39(5): 824-838.
Fagerberg, J., & Godinho, M.M. 2005. Innovation and catching-up. The Oxford
handbook of innovation: 514-543. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fan, P. 2006. Catching up through developing innovation capability: Evidence from
China’s telecom-equipment industry. Technovation, 26(3): 359-368.
Fu, X., Pietrobelli, C., & Soete, L. 2011. The role of foreign technology and indigenous
innovation in the emerging economies: Technological change and catching-up.
World development, 39(7): 1204-1212.
Furman, J., & Hayes, R. 2004. Catching up or standing still?: National innovative
productivity among ‘follower’ countries, 1978–1999. Research Policy, 33(9): 1329–
1354.
Gaur, A. S., & Kumar, M. 2017. A systematic approach to conducting review studies:
An assessment of content analysis in 25 years of IB research. Journal of World
Business, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.11.003.
Gerschenkron, A. 1962. Economic backwardness in historical perspective. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Giachetti, C., & Marchi, G. 2016. Successive changes in leadership in the worldwide
mobile phone industry: The role of windows of opportunity and firms’ competitive
action. Research Policy. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.003.
Giuliani, E., Martinelli, A., & Rabellotti, R. 2016. Is co-invention expediting
technological catch up? A study of collaboration between emerging country firms
and EU inventors. World Development, 77: 192-205.
He, Z., Lim, K., & Wong, P. 2006. Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile
telecommunications market. Research Policy, 35(8): 1147-1165.
Hobday, M. 1994. Export-led technology development in the four dragons: The case of
electronics. Development and Change, 25(2): 333–361.
Hobday, M. 1995. East Asian latecomer firms: learning the technology of electronics.

36
World development, 23(7): 1171-1193.
Hu, M.C., & Mathews, J.A. 2005. National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research
Policy, 34: 1322–1349.
Joo, S.H., Oh, C., & Lee, K. 2016. Catch-up strategy of an emerging firm in an
emerging country: analysing the case of Huawei vs. Ericsson with patent data.
International Journal of Technology Management, 72(1-3): 19-42.
Jung, M., & Lee, K. 2010. Sectoral systems of innovation and productivity catch-up:
determinants of the productivity gap between Korean and Japanese firms. Industrial
and Corporate Change, 19(4): 1037-1069.Kang, H., & Song, J. 2016. Innovation
and recurring shifts in industrial leadership : Three phases of change and persistence
in the camera industry. Research Policy. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.004.
Khanna, T., Song, J., & Lee, K. 2011. The paradox of Samsung’s rise. Harvard
Business Review, 89(7-8): 142-147.
Kim, L. 1980. Stages of development of industrial technology in a developing country:
a model. Research policy, 9(3): 254-277.
Kim, L. 1997. Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea’s technological learning.
Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Kim, L. 1998. Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in
catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization science, 9(4): 506-521.
Kim, L. 1999. Building technological capability for industrialization: analytical
frameworks and Korea's experience. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8(1): 111-
126.
Kim, Y.K., & Lee, K. 2015. Different impacts of scientific & technological knowledge
on economic growth: Contrasting S&T policy in East Asia and Latin America. Asian
Economic Policy Review, 10: 43–66.
Lall, S. 2000. The technological structure and performance of developing country
manufactured exports, 1985‐98. Oxford Development Studies, 28(3): 337-369.
Landini, F., Lee, K., & Malerba, F. 2016. A history-friendly model of the successive
changes in industrial leadership and the catch-up by latecomers. Research Policy.
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.005.
Lee, J., Park, S., Ryu, Y., & Baik, Y. 2010. A hidden cost of strategic alliance under
Schumpeterian dynamics. Research Policy, 39(2): 229-238.
Lee, K. 2013, Schumpeterian analysis of economic catch-up: Knowledge, path-creation,
and the middle-income trap. London: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, K., & Ki, J.H. 2016. Rise of latecomers and catch-up cycles in the world steel
industry. Research Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.010.
Lee, K & Lim, C. 2001. Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings
from the Korean industries. Research Policy, 30(3): 459-483.
Lee, K., & Malerba, F. 2016. Catch-up cycles and changes in industrial
leadership:Windows of opportunity and responses of firms and countries in the
evolution of sectoral systems. Research Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.008.
Li, J., & Kozhikode, R.K. 2008. Knowledge management and innovation strategy: The
challenge for latecomers in emerging economies. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 25(3): 429-450.

37
Mathews, J.A. 2002. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm: A resource-based
account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(4):
467-488.
Mathews, J.A. 2006. Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1): 5-27.
Mathews, J.A., & Cho, D.S. 1999. Combinative capabilities and organizational learning
in latecomer firms: The case of the Korean semiconductor industry. Journal of
World Business, 34(2): 139-156.
Mazzoleni, R. 2008. Catching up and academic institutions: A comparative study of
past national experiences. Journal of Development Studies, 44(5): 678-700.
Mazzoleni, R., & Nelson R.R. 2007. Public research institutions and economic catch-
up. Research Policy, 36(10): 1512–1528.
Miao, Y., Song, J., & Li, J. 2016. Technological environment, search strategy and
technological catch-up of laggards in emerging Asian economies. Mimeo.
Miao, Y., Song, J., & Salomon, R. 2015. Learning from successful peers: Technological
catch-up among Asian laggards. Mimeo.
Mu, Q., & Lee, K. 2005. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological
catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy,
34(6): 759-783.
Nam, K. M. 2015. Compact organizational space and technological catch-up:
Comparison of China's three leading automotive groups. Research Policy, 44(1):
258-272.
Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Niosi, J., & Reid, S.E. 2007. Biotechnology and nanotechnology: science-based
enabling technologies as windows of opportunity for LDCs? World Development,
35(3): 426-438.
Odagiri, H., Goto, A., Sunami, A., & Nelson, R.R. 2010. Intellectual property rights,
development, and catch up: An international comparative study. Oxford University
Press.
Park, K.H., & Lee, K. 2006. Linking the technological regime to the technological
catch-up: Analyzing Korea and Taiwan using the US patent data. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 15(4): 715-753.
Perez, C., & Soete, L. 1988. Catching up in technology: entry barriers and windows of
opportunity". In G.Dosi, R.Nelson, G.Silverberg, & L.Soete (Eds.) Technical
Change and Economic Theory: 458-479. London: Pinter Publishers.
Schumpeter, J.A.1939. Business Cycles. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shin, J.S. 2016. Dynamic catch-up strategy, capability expansion and changing
windows of opportunity in the memory industry. Research Policy. doi:
10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.009.
Song, J., Almeida, P., & Wu, G. 2003. Learning by hiring: When is mobility more likely
to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science, 49(4): 351–365.
Song, J., & Lee, K. 2014. The Samsung Way: Transformational management strategies
from the world leader in innovation and design. McGraw Hill Education.

38
Song, J., Lee, K., & Khanna, T. 2016. Dynamic capabilities at Samsung: Optimizing
internal co-opetition. California Management Review, 58 (4): 118–140.
Wang, J., Liu, X., Wei, Y., & Wang, C. 2014. Cultural proximity and local firms’ catch
up with multinational enterprises. World Development, 60: 1-13.
Wang, J.H., & Tsai, C. 2010. National model of technological catching up and
innovation: Comparing patents of Taiwan and South Korea. Journal of Development
Studies, 46(8): 1404-23.
Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., Ning, L., Chen, J. 2015. Technology and external conditions at
play: A study of learning-by-licensing practices in China. Technovation, 43-44: 29-
29.
Westphal, I.E., Kim, L., & Dalman, C.J. 1985. Reflections of Korea’s acquisition of
technological capacity. In N. Rosenberg & C. Frischtak (Eds.). International
Technology Transfer: Concepts, measures and comparisons. New York: Praeger.
Wu, C.Y., & Mathews, J. A. 2012. Knowledge flows in the solar photovoltaic industry:
Insights from patenting by Taiwan, Korea, and China. Research Policy, 41(3): 524-
540.
Xiao, Y., Tylecote, A. & Liu, J. 2013. Why not greater catch-up by Chinese firms? The
impact of IPR, corporate governance and technology intensity on late-comer
strategies. Research Policy, 42(3): 749-764.

39
Figure 1. Patents granted by the USPTO from 1963 to 2014 (China, Korea,
Taiwan)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014
CHINA
TAIWA
N
KOREA

40
Figure 2. Overall trends by year of publication
Figure 3. Integrated framework of technological catch-up
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Number of publication

41
Table 1. Journals searched for relevant articles
Table 2. Articles reviewed in this study
General Management Innovation
International Business and Area Studies Organization Studies Strategy Entrepreneurship and small business management Economics
Academy of Management Journal Journal of Product Innovation Management Journal of International Business Studies Organization Science Strategic Management Journal Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice American Economic Review
Academy of Management Review Research Policy Journal of World Business Organization Studies Global Strategy Journal Journal of Business Venturing Journal of Political Economy
Administrative Science Quarterly R and D Management Asia Pacific Journal of Management Long Range Planning Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Quarterly Journal of Economics
Journal of Management Technovation International Business Review Strategic Organization Entrepreneurship and Regional Development Review of Economic Studies
British Journal of Management Journal of International Management Family Business Review Economic Journal
Journal of Management Studies Management and Organization Review International Small Business Journal International Economic Review
Academy of Management Perspectives Management International Review Journal of Small Business Management Journal of Economic Literature
California Management Review Small Business Economics Journal of Economic Perspectives
European Management Review Journal of Economic Theory
Harvard Business Review Journal of International Economics
International Journal of Management Reviews Journal of the European Economic Association
Journal of Business Research RAND Journal of Economics
Journal of Management Inquiry American Economic Journal: Applied Economics
MIT Sloan Management Review American Economic Journal: Economic Policy
Annual Review of Economics
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
Cambridge Journal of Economics
Canadian Journal of Economics
Development and Change
Economic Development and Cultural Change
Economic Inquiry
Economic Policy
Economic Theory
Economica
Economics Letters
European Economic Review
IMF Economic Review (forme rly IMF Staff Papers with ISSN 1020-7635)
International Journal of Industrial Organization
Journal of Comparative Economics
Journal of Development Economics
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control
Journal of Economic Growth
Journal of Industrial Economics
Oxford Economics Papers
Review of Economic Dynamics
Scandinavian Journal of Economics
World Bank Economic Review
No. Title Year Author Journal Name
1 East Asian latecomer firms: Learning the technology of electronics 1995 Mike Hobday World Development
2 Internationalization and Competitive Catch-up Processes: Case Study Evidence on Chinese Multinational Enterprises 1996 Stephen Young, Klaus; Chun-Hua Huang, Klaus; McDermott, Michael Management International Review
3 The Dynamics of Samsung's Technological Lea rning in Se miconductors 1997 Kim, Linsu California Management Review
4Catching-up, crisis and industrial upgrading: Evolutionary aspects of technological learning in Korea’s electronics industry 1998 Ernst, Dieter Asia Pacific Journal of Management
5 Latecomer strate gies: Evidence from the semiconductor industry in Japan and Korea 1998 Cho, D., Kim, D., & Rhee, D.K Organization Science
6 Crisis Construction and Organizational Learning: Capability Building in Catching-up at Hyundai Motor 1998 Kim, Linsu Organization Science
7 Building technological capability for industrialization: analytical frameworks and Korea's experience 1999 Kim, L Industrial and Corporate Change
8 Combinative Capabilities and Organizational Learning in Latecomer Firms: The Case of the Korean Sem 1999 Mathews, John A. Dong-Sung Cho Journal of World Business
9 Transition of latecomer firms from technology users to technology generators: Korean semiconductor firms 2000 Choung, J. Y., Hwang, H. R., Choi, J. H., & Rim, M. H. World Development
10 Technological regime s, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from t he Korean industries 2001 Lee, Keun & Lim, Chaisung Research Policy
11 Competitive Advantages of the Latecomer Firm: A Resource-Based Account of Industrial Catch-Up Strategies 2002 Matthews, John Asia Pacific Journal of Management
12 Innovation, technological regimes and organizational selection in industry evolution: a “history friendly mode l” of the DRAM industry. 2003 Kim, C.-W., & Lee, K. Industrial and Corporate Change
13 Cross-over, thresholds, and interactions between science and technology: lessons for less-developed countries 2003 Bernardes, Américo Tristão & Albuquerque, Eduardo da Motta e Research Policy
14 Integration model of technology internalization modes and learning strategy: globally late starter Samsung's successful practices in South Korea 2003 Gil, Y.1 Bong, S.1 Lee, J.1 Technovation
15 The developmental path of networking capability of catch-up players in Korea's semiconductor industry 2003 Cho, Hyun-Dae; Lee, Jae-Keun R&D Management
16 Catching up or standing still?: National innovative productivity among ‘follower’ countries, 1978–1999 2004 Furman, Jeffrey L. & Hayes, Richard Research Policy
17 Approaching the innovation frontier in Korea: the transition phase to leadership 2004 Hobday, Michael Rush, Howard Bessant, John Research Policy
18 Technological learning in China’s colour TV (CTV) industry 2004 Xie, Wie Technovation
19 National innovative capacity in East Asia 2005 Hu, Mei-Chih Mathews, John A. Re search Policy
20 Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China 2005 Mu, Qing Le e, Keun Research Policy
21 The transformation of competitive advantage in East Asia: An analysis of technological and trade specialization 2005 Uchida, Y., & Cook, P. World Development
22 Linking the technological regime to the technological catch-up: Analyzing Korea and Taiwan using the US patent data. 2006 Park, K. H., & Lee, K. Industrial and Corporate Change
23 Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications ma rket 2006 He, Zi-Lin Lim, Kwanghui Wong, Poh-Kam Research Policy
24 Catching up through developing innovation capabilit y: Evidence from China’s telecom-equipment industry 2006 Fan, P Technovation
25 Public research institutions and economic catch-up 2007 Mazzoleni, Roberto Nelson, Richard R. Research Policy
26 Enhancing the Role of Universities in Building National Innovative Capacity in Asia: The Case of Taiwan. 2007 Mathews, J. A., & Hu, M. C. World Development
27 Biotechnology and Nanotechnology: Science-based Enabling Technologies as Windows of Opportunity for LDCs? 2007 Niosi, J., & Reid, S. E . World Development
28 Counterfeit, imitation, reverse engineering and learning: reflections from Chinese manufacturing firms 2007 Minagawa, Tetsuya, Jr.; Trott, Paul; Hoecht, Andreas R&D Management
29 From technological catch-up to innovation-based economic growth: South Korea and Taiwan compared. 2007 Jenn-Hwan Wang Journal of Development Studies
30 Knowledge management and innovation strategy The challenge for latecomers in emerging economies 2008 Jiatao Li; Kozhikode, Rajiv Krishnan Asia Pacific Journal of Management
31 Catching up and academic institutions: A comparative study of past national experiences. 2008 Mazzoleni, R. Journal of Development Studies
32 Breakthrough? China’s and India’s Transition from Production to Innovation. World Development 2008 Altenburg, T., Schmitz, H., & Stamm, A. World Development
33 Innovation in product architecture—A study of the Chinese automobile industry 2008 Hua, Wang Asia Pacific Journal of Management
34 The more interactive, the more innovative? A case study of South Korean cellular phone manufacturers 2008 Hu, Jin-Li; Hsu, Yu-Hsueh Technovation
35 Can Taiwan's second movers upgrade via branding? 2009 Chu, Wan-wen Research Policy
36 Learning through informal local and global linkages: The case of Taiwan's machine tool industry 2009 Chen, Liang-Chih Research Policy
37 Sectoral systems of innovation and productivity catch-up: determinants of the productivity gap between Korean and Japanese firms. 2010 Jung, M., & Lee, K. Industrial and Corporate Change
38 A hidden cost of strategic alliances under Schumpeterian dynamics 2010 Lee, Jeho Park, Seung Ho Ryu, Young Baik, Yoon-Suk Research Policy
39 National model of technological catching up and innovation: Comparing patents of taiwan and south korea 2010 Wang, J. H., & Tsai, C. Journal of Development Studies
40 International Standardization Strategies of Latecomers: The Cases of Korean TPEG, T-DMB, and Binary CDMA. 2011 Choung, J. Y., Ji, I., & Hameed, T. World Development
41 The Role of Foreign Technology and Indigenous Innovation in the Emerging Economie s: Technological Change and Catching-up 2011 Fu, X., Pietrobelli, C., & Soete, L. World Development
42 Local “Test Bed” market demand in the transition to leadership: The case of the Korean mobile handset industry. 2011 Whang, Y. K., & Hobday, M. World Development
43 Learning and catching up in different sectoral systems: Evidence from six industries 2011 Malerba, Franco Nelson, Richard Industrial and Corporate Change
44 Indigenous and Foreign Innovation Efforts and Drivers of Technological Upgrading: Evidence from China 2011 Fu, Xiaolan Gong, Yundan World Development
45 Dynamic competition in technological investments: An empirical examination of the LCD panel industry 2011 Lee, Jeongsik Kim, Byung Cheol Lim, Young Mo International Journal of Industrial Organization
46 International Standardization Strategies of Latecomers: The Cases of Korean TPEG, T-DMB, and Binary CDMA 2011 Jae-Yong Choung, Illyong Ji, Tahir Hameed World Development
47 Innovation, catch-up, and leadership in science-based industries. 2012 Almudi, I., Fatas-Villafranca, F., & Izquierdo, L. R. Industrial and Corporate Change
48 Knowledge flows in the solar photovoltaic industry: Insights from patenting by Taiwan, Korea, and China 2012 Wu, Ching-Yan Mathews, John A. Research Policy
49 In Search of an Innovative State: The Development of the Biopharmaceutical Industry in Taiwan, South Korea and China 2012 Wang, Jenn Hwan Chen, Tsung Yuan Tsai, Ching Jung Development and Change
50 Technological innovation capabilities in the thin film transistor-liquid crystal display industries of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan 2012 Mei-Chih Hu Resea rch Policy
51 EMNE catch-up strategies in the wind turbine industry: Is there a trade-off between output and innovation capabilities? 2012 Snehal Awate, Marcus M. Larsen and Ram Mudambi Global Strategy Journal
52 How a latecomer succeeded in a complex product system industry: three case studies in the Korean telecommunication systems. 2013 Park, T.-Y. Industrial and Corporate Change
53 Why not greater catch-up by Chinese firms? The impact of IPR, corporate governance and technology intensity on late-comer strategies 2013 Xiao, Yangao Tylecote, Andrew Liu, Jiajia Research Policy
54 Knowledge patterns and sources of leadership: Mapping the semiconductor miniaturization trajectory 2013 Marianna Epicoco Research Policy
55 Indigenous innovation vs. teng-long huan-niao: Policy conflicts in the development of China’s flat panel industry. 2014 Chen, T. J., & Ku, Y. H. Industrial and Corporate Change
56 A latecomer's strategy to promote a technology standard: The case of Datang and TD-SCDMA 2014 Gao, Xudong Research Policy
57 Transitions of Innovation Activities in Latecomer Countries: An Exploratory Case Study of South Korea. World Development 2014 Choung, J. Y., Hwang, H. R., & Song, W. World Development
58 Cultural proximity and local firms’ catch up with multinational enterprises. 2014 Wang, J., Liu, X., Wei, Y., & Wang, C. World Development
59 The effect of R&D novelty and openness decision on firms' catch-up performance: Empirical evidence from China 2014 Wang, Fangrui; Chen, Jin; Wang, Yuandi; Lutao, Ning; Vanhaverbeke, Wim Technovation
60 The role of technological catch up and domestic market growth in the genesis of emerging country based multinationals 2014 Peter J. Buckley, Niron Hashai Research Policy
61 The Co-evolution of Technology and Institutions in the Catch-up Process: The Case of the Semiconductor Industry in Korea and Taiwan. 2014 Hwang, Hye-Ran; Choung, Jae-Yong. Journal of Development Studies
62 Compact organizational space and technological catch-up: Comparison of China's three leading automotive groups 2015 Nam, Kyung-Min Research Policy
63 How absorptive capacity is formed in a latecomer economy: Different roles of foreign patent and know-how licensing in Korea 2015 Chung, M. Y., & Lee, K. World Development
64 Technology and external conditions at play: A study of learning-by-licensing practices in China 2015 Yuandi Wang, Zhao Zhou, Lutao Ning, Jin Chen Technovation
65 A history-friendly model of the successive changes in industrial leadership and the catch-up by latecomers 2016 Landini, Fabio Lee, Keun Malerba, Franco Research Policy
66 Successive changes in leadership in the worldwide mobile phone industry: The role of windows of opportunity and firms’ competitive action 2016 Giachetti, Claudio Marchi, Gianluca Research Policy
67 Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors. 2016 Giuliani, E., Martinelli, A., & Rabellotti, R. World Development
68 Evolution and Coevolution: Dynamic Knowledge Capability Building for Catching-up in Emerging Economie s. 2016 Dong, Xiaoying; Yu, Yan; Zhang, Na Management and Organization Review
69 Rise of latecomers and catch-up cycles in the world steel industry 2017
Lee, Keun; Ki, Jee-hoon Research Policy
70 Dynamic catch-up strategy, capability expansion and changing windows of opportunity in the memory industry 2017 Shin, Jang-Sup Re search Policy
71 Catch-up cycles and changes in industrial leadership:Windows of opportunity and responses of firms and countries in the evolution of sectoral systems 2017 Lee , Keun Malerba, Franco Research Policy
72 Innovation and recurring shifts in industrial leadership: Three phases of change and persistence in the camera industry 2017 Kang, Hyo Song, Jaeyong Resea rch Policy
73 Catch-up via agglomeration: A study of township clusters 2017 Jia, Liangding; Li, Sali; Tallman, Steve; Zheng, Yaqin Global Strategy Journal
74 Toward Technology-Sensit ive Catching-Up Policies: Insights from Renewable Energy in China 2017 Binz, Christian Gosens, Jorrit Hansen, Teis Hansen, Ulrich Elmer World Development
75 Inside the virtuous circle between productivity, profitability, investment and corporate growth: An anatomy of Chinese industrialization 2017 Xiaodan Yu, Giovanni Dosi, Marco Grazzi, Jiasu Lei Research Policy
76 Toward Technology-Sensit ive Catching-Up Policies: Insights from Renewable Energy in China 2017 Christian Binz, Jorrit Gosens, Teis Hansen, Ulrich Elmer Hansen World Development

42
Table 3. Research disciplines of reviewed articles
Research Disciplines
Number of articles
Percentage
Economics
33
43.42%
Innovation
31
40.79%
International Business and Area Studies
7
9.21%
Organization Studies
2
2.63%
Strategy
2
2.63%
General Management
1
1.32%

43
Table 4. Theoretical background of the reviewed articles
Theoretical Background/Orientation
Number of Times Used
Percentage
None or not specified
44
57.89%
Absorptive capacity or capability
10
13.16%
Schumpeterian economics
9
11.84%
Evolutionary economics
4
5.26%
Timing of entry and latecomer advantage
perspective
3
3.95%
Resource (knowledge)-based view
3
3.95%
Miscellaneous
3
3.95%
Table 5. Methodology of reviewed articles
Methodology
Number of articles
Percentage
Qualitative
48
63.16%
Quantitative
21
27.63%
Simulation
4
5.26%
Conceptual
3
3.95%
Table 6. Industry distribution of reviewed articles
Industry
Number of
Times
Percentage
Not specified
25
29.07%
semiconductor
9
10.47%
telecommunication
9
10.47%
automobile
8
9.30%
manufacturing
4
4.65%
electronics
3
3.49%
automotive
2
2.33%
biotechnology
2
2.33%
camera
2
2.33%
D-RAM
2
2.33%
memory
2
2.33%
steel
2
2.33%
wind industry
2
2.33%
apparel
1
1.16%
CTV industry
1
1.16%
flat panel
1
1.16%
high-tech
1
1.16%

44
ICT
1
1.16%
IT
1
1.16%
LCD panel
1
1.16%
machine tool
1
1.16%
wine
1
1.16%
renewable energy
1
1.16%
science-based industries
1
1.16%
solar photovoltaic
1
1.16%
TFT-LCD
1
1.16%
solar TV, CoPS
1
1.16%
Table 7. Country distribution of reviewed articles
Country
Number of Times
Percentage
Korea
34
36.56%
China
27
29.03%
Taiwan
15
16.13%
India
4
4.30%
Brazil
2
2.15%
Not specified
11
11.83%