Three essays on innovation and policy efficiency : entrepreneurship, market feasibility and policy acceptance

Abstract

There are three myths pertaining to innovation and technology management. First, it is believed that the core criteria for success in innovation are of a technical rather than a commercial nature. Second, it is believed that technology (high-tech) can usually lead and/or create (new) markets. The last myth dictates that encouraging technological innovation is only possible by protecting a high-tech and/or early-stage industry through government support policies. However, contrary to these popular myths, I believe that the criteria for success in technological innovation are commercial rather than technical: an innovation is truly successful if it returns the original investment as well as additional returns in its commercialization phase. This requires a sufficiently large non-bubble market alongside the capability to read market trends for innovation, entrepreneurship to create new markets/businesses, and a favorable government support policy. Accordingly, this dissertation deals with three important issues related to innovation and technology management: entrepreneurship (man), market (feasibility), and policy (efficiency). To explore several myths related to three issues, this study employs an incremental innovation approach. The first chapter has two objectives: to identify the gaps between the results of conventional feasibility studies and reality, in relation to path dependence and path evolution, and to show how government support/policies pervert the market for high-tech products from an evolutionary perspective of the path. This study proved that conducting conventional feasibility studies do not incorporate changes in economic feasibility. In addition, how policy support can create a bubble in the sustainable energy industry and distort the market value. Policy support is necessary, but must be implemented with right timing, contents and delivery system. The second chapter attempts to belie the popular myth of the relationship between risk and SMEs ...