Bøger af Dieter Ernst

China, the world's leading exporter of electronic products, faces a fundamental dilemma. It is the largest and fastest-growing market for semiconductors, the core component of those electronics products. Yet, at least 80 percent of the semiconductors used in China's electronics products must be imported. As a result, China's trade deficit in semiconductors has more than doubled since 2005 and now exceeds the huge amount it spends on crude oil imports. To correct this unsustainable imbalance, China's new strategy to upgrade its semiconductor industry seeks to move from catching up to forging ahead in semiconductors. The strategy calls for simultaneously strengthening advanced manufacturing and innovation capabilities in China's integrated circuit (IC) design industry and its domestic IC fabrication, primarily through foundry services. Drawing on policy documents and interviews with China-based industry experts, this study takes a close look at the objectives, strategy, and implementation policies of China's new push in semiconductors and examines what this implies for China's prospects in this industry. The study shows that China's new policy resorts to private equity investment rather than subsidy as the tool of industrial policy. The government participates in equity investment and claims it will do so without intervening in management decisions. This policy is expected to reduce the cost of investment funds for a selected group of firms, which is to form a "national team" in the semiconductor industry. China's new policy to upgrade its semiconductor industry through innovation does not represent a radical break with its deeply embedded statist tradition. Within these boundaries, however, the study detects important changes in the direction of a bottom-up, market-led approach to industrial policy. In response to the rising complexity and uncertainty of today's semiconductor industry, the government seems more open to experimentation with new approaches to investment finance and flexible, bottom-up policy implementation, based on multilayered industrial dialogues with private firms. China's policies to forge ahead in semiconductors, thus, provide an interesting example of its current efforts to move from investment-driven catching up to an innovation-driven development model.

India, a leading exporter of information-technology services, faces a fundamental puzzle. Its electronics industry is struggling despite a huge and growing domestic market and pockets of world-class capabilities. Drawing on survey questionnaires and interviews with key private and public industry players and multinationals, this study examines how restrictive regulations and a largely dysfunctional implementation of past support policies have constrained investment in plants and equipment and technology absorption and innovation. Electronics manufacturing remains disconnected from India's chip-design capabilities which are integrated, instead, into global networks of innovation and production. India's growing domestic demand for electronic products results in rising imports of final products and high import-dependence for key components. Bold action is required to change the anemic growth of electronics manufacturing just when the global electronics industry is rapidly ending historical strategies for growth. To achieve its potential, electronics manufacturing in India must move beyond "high-volume, low-cost" activities, towards a greater focus on "low-volume, high-value" production and on frugal innovation for the domestic market. The government's National Policy on Electronics is a first step on this path, but it needs to be complemented by reforms relating to taxation, customs, compliance, and inspections. Equally important are efforts to enhance the strategic use of technical standards and smart approaches to international trade diplomacy.

Across Asia there is a keen interest in the potential advantages of America's market-led system of voluntary standards and its contribution to US innovation leadership in complex technologies. For its proponents, the US tradition of bottom-up, decentralized, informal, market-led standardization is a "best practice" model for innovation policy. Observers in Asia are, however, concerned about possible drawbacks of a standards system largely driven by the private sector. This study reviews the historical roots of the American system, examines its defining characteristics, and highlights its strengths and weaknesses. A tradition of decentralized local self-government has given voice to diverse stakeholders in innovation. However, a lack of effective coordination of multiple stakeholder strategies constrains effective and open standardization processes. Asian countries seeking to improve their standards systems should study the strengths and weaknesses of the American system. Attempts to replicate the US standards system will face clear limitations--persistent differences in Asia's economic institutions, levels of development, and growth models are bound to limit convergence to a US-style market-led voluntary standards system.