产业开放、技术体制与产业技术能力关联机制研究
|
摘要
中国实行改革开放三十余年来,各产业得到飞速发展。然而,随着开放程度不断提高,产业原有封闭系统的稳定性遭到破坏,产业动荡性加剧,受外部条件变化波及更加频繁,这种现象导致了我国各产业在开放后呈现出了不同的发展态势：一部分产业潜力被激活,在开放大潮中乘风破浪,高歌向前,发展成为国内经济的支柱产业,并打破了全球原有产业格局,树立了牢固的国际地位；而另有一批产业则在大批国际同行涌入的夹击下,如逆水行舟,异常艰难,产业技术数十年也没有实现本质上的进步和突破,大批民族品牌似有式微之势。
从上世纪90年代中期起,越来越多学者开始关注上述现象。理论研究者对开放所带来的经济效益、技术效益和社会效益开始出现质疑,并基于此展开系列研究。这类研究首先关注了技术引进带来的溢出效应,技术溢出水平不同,对产业的影响程度不同,由此导致各个产业发展速度出现差异。然而仅凭溢出效应无法解释同一产业内企业发展分化的现象,为此学者又纳入了吸收能力这个解释变量,面临同等溢出水平,个体的吸收能力强弱决定了其对溢出知识的利用情况。
上述研究多是基于企业视角,然而一个产业是众多企业的整合却不是简单加和。作者在对众多产业发展历程资料的回溯以及从事研究数年间实地调研的体验中发现,受到开放冲击的各个产业,由于外方资金、技术的涌入,不仅原有的知识基础被解构,原有的主导设计、产品与技术标准、生产方式等也同时可能被颠覆。如果技术溢出水平的高低及其与接受方吸收能力的强弱影响的是一个产业发展的速度,那么这些要素的变化则会彻底改变一个产业的现有分布结构、利益格局与发展方向。产业发展是一个复杂的整合过程,是一场繁杂的、多层次的系统演化,要完整描述其规律与趋势,需要更为丰富的解释。然而,以往的理论研究中却鲜有对这一过程黑箱的深入分析。
为解释和剖析产业这一变化发展过程,本研究引入了技术体制这一解释变量。本研究解决的首要理论问题是技术体制的动态性。通过对技术体制概念层次的划分,对其规则属性与环境属性的辨析,本文用规范分析的方法解释了技术体制的动态演进过程,从而为后续研究提供了理论基础。
技术体制虽然具有动态性,但其演变是一个相对漫长的过程,短时间内的数据信息无法体现其动态特征。考虑这一特点,本文采用纵向案例研究的方法来解析产业开放程度是如何影响技术体制要素,从而使其发生演变的。
综合产业的代表性、典型性以及实地调研的可获得性和便利性,本文选取了浙江省建筑业和台州医药化工产业进行对比研究。研究描绘了在不同开放程度下,技术体制是否发生变化以及如何发生变化。在案例研究的过程中本研究还发现了导致技术体制变化的另一个重要外部条件——产业政策。紧随其后本文通过对台州医药化工产业的单案例研究进一步分析了技术体制与产业技术能力之间相互作用的共演关系。由此,本研究构建起了对外开放、技术体制与产业技术能力三者之间的一种关联机制。研究结果为我们理解处于开放条件下的产业发展提供了更广阔的视角,同时也提示我们应当审视并制定更加合理的开放政策。
本文的主要结论包括：
(1)技术体制具有动态性。技术体制在微观(企业)层面表现为规则属性,即企业从事技术活动所遵循的一系列规则；在中观(产业)层面表现为环境属性,即企业所处的技术环境,包括技术机会、创新独占性、技术进步的累积性以及知识基的特性等。规则是基础架构,环境是一系列规则经过不同组合后体现出的不同表征。个体企业的规则变化经过扩散,聚合到产业层面导致了技术环境的动态变化。
(2)产业对外开放程度和产业政策的变化是导致技术体制演变的两个重要的外部影响因素。其导致技术体制变化的作用机制是：外部条件变化刺激企业在日常生产和创新活动中所遵循的指导规则发生变化,这种影响作用由点到面、由个体到整体,由微观到中观,当产业中大量企业的行动指导规则发生变化后,这种效应聚合到产业层面就导致了技术体制的转变。
(3)技术体制变化的内因是技术的变革。内因导致技术体制变化的作用机制是通过技术能力与技术体制相互协调适应、共同演进来完成的。
本文原创性的理论贡献主要集中在：(1)技术体制概念的整合；(2)技术体制动态性的提出和验证；(3)技术体制演变的内外因与作用机制研究。
Chinese domestic industries have been rapidly developed during the3decades of "reform and opening" policy. However, with the continuous improvement of openness, the stability of industrial closed system has been gradually destroyed, the volatility of industrial development is also changing more frequently, which leads to different trends for each industry respectively. Some industries are activated, while others are suffering fierce competition from all over the world.
More and more scholars began to pay attentions to this phenomenon since the mid-1990s. Theorists try to question the economical, technical and social outcomes of openness, and yield different results. At first the research focuses on the spillover effects of openness, and argues that the level of spillover impacts the development of domestic industries. Furthermore, other scholars introduce the moderate effects of absorptive capacity to deepen the understanding of the phenomenon.
The extant literature is mainly focus on individual firm level or the sum of several firms. However, one industry is not simply the sum of all firms in it. Based upon experienced field work, the author finds out that when facing openness, not only the original knowledge base is destroyed, but the dominant design, product and technical standards, production process also be subverted. These factors could completely change an industry's existing distribution structure, the allocation of interests and direction of development. Industrial development is a complex integration process, and a complicated, multi-layered evolution system. To illustrate a complete view of an industrial development, we need to open the black box of the process, which is ignored by extant literature.
For deep interpretation of this process, this thesis introduces the concept of technical regime as the main explanatory variable. The first theoratical problem to be solved is the dynamic of technological regime. Using the normative analysis method, the thesis defines the different levels of the concept, differentiates the rule-sets and environment attributes, and explains he dynamic evolution of the technological regime, which provides a theoretical basis for further research.
Although technological regime is dynamic, its evolution is quite a long process, and is reletively stable during a certain period of time. Thus, the data of a short period of time can not reflect its dynamic characteristics. Considering this feature, the thesis chooses longitudinal case study method to explain how openness affect the elements of the technological regime, and leads to its evolution.
Comprehensively considering the representative of the industry, the availability and convenience of field research, this thesis selected the construction industry of Zhejiang Province and the pharmaceutical and chemical industry of Taizhou district. The comperative case study research describes whether there is change of technological regime under different openness degree and if so, how does its change occur. Meanwhile the research finds out another important exogenous variable, the industrial policy. Following the comperative study, the thesis uses the material of the field research of the pharmaceutical and chemical industry of Taizhou to development a deeper single case study, which analyzes the coevolution of the technological regime and industrial technology capability.
In sum, the thesis builds up the correlative mechanisms model of openness, technological regime and industrial technological capabiliy. The results provide a broader perspective for understanding the industrial development which facing openness. And it also indicates that the government should carefully examine and develop some more rational opening-up policies.
The main conclusions of this thesis are:
(1) Technological regime is dynamic. Technological regime is taken as a rule-set which technological decision follows at the micro(firm) level. While it is treated as the environment or atmosphere within which firms conduct their innovation activities at the meso(industrial) level, which is defined in terms of conditions of opportunity, appropriability, cumulativeness and properties of the knowledge base. The rule-sets are the infrastructure, and the environment is the characteristics of the different combination of rule-sets. Diffusion of changes at the firm level leads to the dynamic evolution of technological environment at the industrial level.
(2) There are two important external factors which lead to the evolution of thechnological regime, indurtrial openness and policy. The shifts of technological regime can be achieved through the changes of rule-sets that guide the day-to-day production and innovation activities under the stimulation of external environmental conditions. When the rules of a large number of enterprises change, it would be aggregated to the evolution of industrial level.
(3) The internal factor which leads to the change of technological regime is technical change. The changing is a process of coordination and coevolution of technological capability and technological regime.
The theoretical contributions of this thesis are manifested in:(1) the integration of the concept of technological regime;(2) the proposing and proving of the dynamic of technological regime;(3) the external and internal factors of technological changing and their mechanism of action.
从上世纪90年代中期起,越来越多学者开始关注上述现象。理论研究者对开放所带来的经济效益、技术效益和社会效益开始出现质疑,并基于此展开系列研究。这类研究首先关注了技术引进带来的溢出效应,技术溢出水平不同,对产业的影响程度不同,由此导致各个产业发展速度出现差异。然而仅凭溢出效应无法解释同一产业内企业发展分化的现象,为此学者又纳入了吸收能力这个解释变量,面临同等溢出水平,个体的吸收能力强弱决定了其对溢出知识的利用情况。
上述研究多是基于企业视角,然而一个产业是众多企业的整合却不是简单加和。作者在对众多产业发展历程资料的回溯以及从事研究数年间实地调研的体验中发现,受到开放冲击的各个产业,由于外方资金、技术的涌入,不仅原有的知识基础被解构,原有的主导设计、产品与技术标准、生产方式等也同时可能被颠覆。如果技术溢出水平的高低及其与接受方吸收能力的强弱影响的是一个产业发展的速度,那么这些要素的变化则会彻底改变一个产业的现有分布结构、利益格局与发展方向。产业发展是一个复杂的整合过程,是一场繁杂的、多层次的系统演化,要完整描述其规律与趋势,需要更为丰富的解释。然而,以往的理论研究中却鲜有对这一过程黑箱的深入分析。
为解释和剖析产业这一变化发展过程,本研究引入了技术体制这一解释变量。本研究解决的首要理论问题是技术体制的动态性。通过对技术体制概念层次的划分,对其规则属性与环境属性的辨析,本文用规范分析的方法解释了技术体制的动态演进过程,从而为后续研究提供了理论基础。
技术体制虽然具有动态性,但其演变是一个相对漫长的过程,短时间内的数据信息无法体现其动态特征。考虑这一特点,本文采用纵向案例研究的方法来解析产业开放程度是如何影响技术体制要素,从而使其发生演变的。
综合产业的代表性、典型性以及实地调研的可获得性和便利性,本文选取了浙江省建筑业和台州医药化工产业进行对比研究。研究描绘了在不同开放程度下,技术体制是否发生变化以及如何发生变化。在案例研究的过程中本研究还发现了导致技术体制变化的另一个重要外部条件——产业政策。紧随其后本文通过对台州医药化工产业的单案例研究进一步分析了技术体制与产业技术能力之间相互作用的共演关系。由此,本研究构建起了对外开放、技术体制与产业技术能力三者之间的一种关联机制。研究结果为我们理解处于开放条件下的产业发展提供了更广阔的视角,同时也提示我们应当审视并制定更加合理的开放政策。
本文的主要结论包括：
(1)技术体制具有动态性。技术体制在微观(企业)层面表现为规则属性,即企业从事技术活动所遵循的一系列规则；在中观(产业)层面表现为环境属性,即企业所处的技术环境,包括技术机会、创新独占性、技术进步的累积性以及知识基的特性等。规则是基础架构,环境是一系列规则经过不同组合后体现出的不同表征。个体企业的规则变化经过扩散,聚合到产业层面导致了技术环境的动态变化。
(2)产业对外开放程度和产业政策的变化是导致技术体制演变的两个重要的外部影响因素。其导致技术体制变化的作用机制是：外部条件变化刺激企业在日常生产和创新活动中所遵循的指导规则发生变化,这种影响作用由点到面、由个体到整体,由微观到中观,当产业中大量企业的行动指导规则发生变化后,这种效应聚合到产业层面就导致了技术体制的转变。
(3)技术体制变化的内因是技术的变革。内因导致技术体制变化的作用机制是通过技术能力与技术体制相互协调适应、共同演进来完成的。
本文原创性的理论贡献主要集中在：(1)技术体制概念的整合；(2)技术体制动态性的提出和验证；(3)技术体制演变的内外因与作用机制研究。
Chinese domestic industries have been rapidly developed during the3decades of "reform and opening" policy. However, with the continuous improvement of openness, the stability of industrial closed system has been gradually destroyed, the volatility of industrial development is also changing more frequently, which leads to different trends for each industry respectively. Some industries are activated, while others are suffering fierce competition from all over the world.
More and more scholars began to pay attentions to this phenomenon since the mid-1990s. Theorists try to question the economical, technical and social outcomes of openness, and yield different results. At first the research focuses on the spillover effects of openness, and argues that the level of spillover impacts the development of domestic industries. Furthermore, other scholars introduce the moderate effects of absorptive capacity to deepen the understanding of the phenomenon.
The extant literature is mainly focus on individual firm level or the sum of several firms. However, one industry is not simply the sum of all firms in it. Based upon experienced field work, the author finds out that when facing openness, not only the original knowledge base is destroyed, but the dominant design, product and technical standards, production process also be subverted. These factors could completely change an industry's existing distribution structure, the allocation of interests and direction of development. Industrial development is a complex integration process, and a complicated, multi-layered evolution system. To illustrate a complete view of an industrial development, we need to open the black box of the process, which is ignored by extant literature.
For deep interpretation of this process, this thesis introduces the concept of technical regime as the main explanatory variable. The first theoratical problem to be solved is the dynamic of technological regime. Using the normative analysis method, the thesis defines the different levels of the concept, differentiates the rule-sets and environment attributes, and explains he dynamic evolution of the technological regime, which provides a theoretical basis for further research.
Although technological regime is dynamic, its evolution is quite a long process, and is reletively stable during a certain period of time. Thus, the data of a short period of time can not reflect its dynamic characteristics. Considering this feature, the thesis chooses longitudinal case study method to explain how openness affect the elements of the technological regime, and leads to its evolution.
Comprehensively considering the representative of the industry, the availability and convenience of field research, this thesis selected the construction industry of Zhejiang Province and the pharmaceutical and chemical industry of Taizhou district. The comperative case study research describes whether there is change of technological regime under different openness degree and if so, how does its change occur. Meanwhile the research finds out another important exogenous variable, the industrial policy. Following the comperative study, the thesis uses the material of the field research of the pharmaceutical and chemical industry of Taizhou to development a deeper single case study, which analyzes the coevolution of the technological regime and industrial technology capability.
In sum, the thesis builds up the correlative mechanisms model of openness, technological regime and industrial technological capabiliy. The results provide a broader perspective for understanding the industrial development which facing openness. And it also indicates that the government should carefully examine and develop some more rational opening-up policies.
The main conclusions of this thesis are:
(1) Technological regime is dynamic. Technological regime is taken as a rule-set which technological decision follows at the micro(firm) level. While it is treated as the environment or atmosphere within which firms conduct their innovation activities at the meso(industrial) level, which is defined in terms of conditions of opportunity, appropriability, cumulativeness and properties of the knowledge base. The rule-sets are the infrastructure, and the environment is the characteristics of the different combination of rule-sets. Diffusion of changes at the firm level leads to the dynamic evolution of technological environment at the industrial level.
(2) There are two important external factors which lead to the evolution of thechnological regime, indurtrial openness and policy. The shifts of technological regime can be achieved through the changes of rule-sets that guide the day-to-day production and innovation activities under the stimulation of external environmental conditions. When the rules of a large number of enterprises change, it would be aggregated to the evolution of industrial level.
(3) The internal factor which leads to the change of technological regime is technical change. The changing is a process of coordination and coevolution of technological capability and technological regime.
The theoretical contributions of this thesis are manifested in:(1) the integration of the concept of technological regime;(2) the proposing and proving of the dynamic of technological regime;(3) the external and internal factors of technological changing and their mechanism of action.
引文
1 数据来源：国家统计局网站
1 翻译自Dr. Dundar F. Kocaoglu2012年7月在浙江大学的讲座"Technology era driven by konwlege"。
1 关于技术范式、技术体制与技术轨道之间的层次关系与区别,后来有学者专门进行过研究,可见于[18]
Castellacci, F. Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories:Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy,2008,37(6-7),978-994.
1 数据来源：[161]陈文健.基于波特钻石模型的中国建筑业国际竞争优势分析.建筑经济,2011,1,004.
1 数据来源：投资台州网：http://www.investaizhou.gov.cn/investaizhou/info/02_yy.php
[1]Aitken, B. J., Harrison, A. E. Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American economic review,1999,89(3), 605-618.
[2]Amit, R., Zott, C. Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 2001,22(6-7),493-520.
[3]Audretsch, D. B. New-firm survival and the technological regime. Review of Economics & Statistics,1991,73(3),441.
[4]Barrios, S., Strobl, E. Learning by doing and spillovers:Evidence from firm-level panel data. Review of Industrial Organization,2004,25(2),175-203.
[5]Bekaert, G., Harvey, C. R., Lundblad, C. Financial openness and productivity. World Development,2011,39(1),1-19.
[6]Bell, M., Marin, A. Where do foreign direct investment-related technology spillovers come from in emerging economies? An exploration in Argentina in the 1990s. The European Journal of Development Research,2004,16(3),653-686.
[7]Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M. The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy,2011,40 (1), 81-93.
[8]Blalock, G. Technology from foreign direct investment:strategic transfer through supply chains. Empirical Investigations in International Trade Conference at Purdue University,2001.
[9]Blomstrom. M., Kokko, A. The impact of foreign investment on host countries:A review of the empirical evidence. Policy Research Working Paper,1996.
[10]Blomstrom. M., Kokko, A. Foreign direct investment and spillovers of technology. International Journal of Technology Management,2001,22 (5), 435-454.
[11]Blomstrom. M., Sjoholm, F. Technology transfer and spillovers:does local participation with multinationals matter? European economic review,1999,43 (4),915-923.
[12]Blomstrom, M., Wolff, E. N. Multinational corporations and productivity convergence in Mexico. National Bureau of Economic Research,1994.
[13]Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., Lee, J.-W. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of international Economics,1998,45 (1), 115-135.
[14]Brulhart, M. The spatial effects of trade openness:a survey. Review of World Economics,2011,147(1),59-83.
[15]Breschi, S., Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. The economic journal,2000,110(463),388-410.
[16]Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M., Wheelwright, S. C. Strategic management of technology and innovation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin,2008.
[17]Castellacci, F. Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth. Industrial & Corporate Change,2007,16(6),1105-1145.
[18]Castellacci, F. Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories:Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy,2008,37(6-7),978-994.
[19]Caves, R. E. Multinational Firms, Competition, and Productivity in Host-Country Markets. Economica,1974,41(162),176-193.
[20]Chang-Wook Kim, J. A., Keun, L. Innovation, technological regimes and organizational selection in industry evolution:a'history friendly model' of the DRAM industry. Industrial & Corporate Change,2003,12(6),1195-1221.
[21]Chang, R., Kaltani, L., Loayza, N. Openness can be good for growth:The role of policy complementarities. National Bureau of Economic Research,2005.
[22]Cho, H.-D., Lee, J.-K. The developmental path of networking capability of catch-up players in Korea's semiconductor industry. R&D Management,2003, 33(4),411-423.
[23]Christopoulos, D., McAdam, P. Openness, Efficiency and Technology:An Industry Assessment. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,2013,60 (1),56-70.
[24]Coff, R. W. The coevolution of rent appropriation and capability development. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(7),711-733.
[25]Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive Capacity:A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35 (1), 128-152.
[26]Cooke, P., Wills, D. Small firms, social capital and the enhancement of business performance through innovation programmes. Small Business Economics,1999, 13(3),219-234.
[27]Cristina, C. The Acquisition of Firm Technological Capabilities in Mexico's Open Economy, The Case of Vitro. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2001,66(1),75-85.
[28]Czarnitzki, D., Spielkamp, A. Business services in Germany:bridges for innovation. The Service Industries Journal,2003,23(2),1-30.
[29]Dahlman, C. J., Ross-Larson, B., Westphal, L. E. Managing technological development:lessons from the newly industrializing countries. World Development,1987,15(6),759-775.
[30]Dasgupta, P., Stiglitz, J. Uncertainty, industrial structure, and the speed of R&D. The Bell Journal of Economics,1980,11(1),1-28.
[31]Del Gatto, M., Ottaviano, G. I., Pagnini, M. Openness to trade and industry cost dispersion:evidence from a panel of italian firms. Journal of Regional Science, 2008,48(1),97-129.
[32]Delmas, M., Tokat, Y. Deregulation, governance structures, and efficiency:the U.S. electric utility sector. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26 (5),441-460.
[33]Dieleman, M., Sachs, W. M. Coevolution of institutions and corporations in emerging economies:How the Salim group morphed into an institution of Suharto's crony regime. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45 (7), 1274-1300.
[34]Dimelis, S. P. Spillovers from foreign direct investment and firm growth: Technological, financial and market structure effects. International Journal of the Economics of Business,2005,12(1),85-104.
[35]Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories:A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy,1982,11 (3),147-162.
[36]Dosi, G. Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of economic literature,1988,26(3),1120-1171.
[37]Edwards, S. Openness, trade liberalization, and growth in developing countries. Journal of economic literature,1993,31(3),1358-1393.
[38]Edwards, S. Openness, productivity and growth:what do we really know? The economic journal,1998,108(447),383-398.
[39]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review,1989a,,532-550.
[40]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review,1989b,14(4),532-550.
[41]Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E. Theory building from cases:Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE,2007,50 (1), 25-32.
[42]Fabienne, F. FDI and technology transfer. In The costs and benefits of FDI, OECD (ed.), Paris:OECD,2001.
[43]Fang, E. Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing,2008,72 (4),90-104.
[44]Gorg, H., Greenaway, D. Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment? The World Bank Research Observer, 2004,19(2),171-197.
[45]Gao, X. Technological capability catching up:follow the normal way or deviate. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,2003.
[46]Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R. Transformative capacity:Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15 (5), 365-385.
[47]Grossman, G. M., Helpman, E. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. The Review of Economic Studies,1991,58(1),43-61.
[48]Guerrieri, P., Pietrobelli, C. Industrial districts' evolution and technological regimes:Italy and Taiwan. Technovation,2004,24(11),899-914.
[49]Haas, M. R. The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organization. Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(5),989-1008.
[50]Haddad, M., Harrison, A. Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment?:Evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics,1993,42(1),51-74.
[51]Hadjilambrinos, C. Technological regimes:an analytical framework for the evaluation of technological systems. Technology in Society,1998,20 (2), 179-194.
[52]Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Peterson, K., Monczka, R. M. Involving suppliers in new product development? California management review,1999, 42,59-82.
[53]Helfat, C. E., Peteraf, M. A. The dynamic resource-based view:capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24 (10),997-1010.
[54]Hobday, M. East Asian latecomer firms:learning the technology of electronics. World Development,1995a,23(7),1171-1193.
[55]Hobday, M. Innovation in East Asia:the challenge to Japan. Aldershot, London, 1995b,
[56]Hobday, M. Firm-level innovation models:perspectives on research in developed and developing countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2005, 17(2),121-146.
[57]Iammarino, S., McCann, P. The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Research Policy,2006,35 (7),1018-1036.
[58]Inkpen, A. C., Pien, W. An examination of collaboration and knowledge transfer: China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park. Journal of Management Studies,2006, 43(4),779-811.
[59]Javorcik, B. S. Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. The American Economic Review,2004,94(3),605-627.
[60]Jiang, L., Tan, J., Thursby, M. Incumbent firm invention in emerging fields: evidence from the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal,2011, 32(1),55-75.
[61]Kale, D., Little, S. From Imitation to Innovation:The Evolution of R&D Capabilities and Learning Processes in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2007,19(5),589-609.
[62]Kast, F. E., Rosenzweig, J. E. Organization and management:A systems and contingency approach. McGraw-Hill New York,1979.
[63]Kaufmann, A., Todtling, F. Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation:the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy,2001,30(5),791-804.
[64]Kearney, A. Inc., and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2002), Globalization's last hurrah. Foreign Policy,2003,,38-51.
[65]Kim, L. Stages of development of industrial technology in a developing country: a model. Research Policy,1980,9(3),254-277.
[66]Kim, L. Imitation to innovation:the dynamics of Korea's technological learning. Harvard Business Press,1997.
[67]Kim, L. Crisis construction and organizational learning:Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization science,1998,9(4),506-521.
[68]Kim, L. Building technological capability for industrialization:analytical frameworks and Korea's experience. Industrial & Corporate Change,1999,8(1), 111.
[69]King, A. A., Shaver, J. M. Are aliens green? Assessing foreign establishments' environmental conduct in the United states. Strategic Management Journal,2001, 22(11),1069-1085.
[70]Kinoshita, Y. Technology spillovers through foreign direct investment. CERGE-EI Working Paper,1999
[71]Kinoshita, Y. R&D and technology spillovers via FDI:Innovation and absorptive capacity.2000,
[72]Klepper, S. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The American Economic Review,1996,86(3),562-583.
[73]Ko, D.-G., Kirsch, L. J., King, W. R. Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS quarterly,2005, 29(1),59-85.
[74]Kokko, A. Foreign direct investment, host country characteristics and spillovers. Stockholm School of Economics,1992.
[75]Kokko, A. Technology, market characteristics, and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics,1994,43(2),279-293.
[76]Kokko, A., Tansini, R., Zejan, M. C. Local technological capability and productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. The Journal of Development Studies,1996,32(4),602-611.
[77]Kumaresan, N., Miyazaki, K. Management and Policy Concerns over Shifts in Innovation Trajectories:The Case of the Japanese Robotics Industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2001,13(3),433-462.
[78]Lall, S. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Development, 1992,20(2),165-186.
[79]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., Pathak, S. The Reification of Absorptive Capacity:A Critical Review and Rejuvenation of the Construct. The Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[80]Laursen, K., Salter, A. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2),131-150.
[81]Lazonick, W. Indigenous innovation and economic development:Lessons from China's Leap into the Information Age. Industry and Innovation,2004,11 (4), 273-297.
[82]Lazonick, W., O'SULLIVAN, M. Organization, finance and international competition. Industrial and Corporate Change,1996,5(1),1-49.
[83]Lee, C., Lee, K., Pennings, J. M. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance:a study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7),615-640.
[84]Lee, H. Y., Ricci, L. A., Rigobon, R. Once again, is openness good for growth? Journal of Development Economics,2004,75(2),451-472.
[85]Lee, J., Bae, Z. t., Choi, D. k. Technology development processes:a model for a developing country with a global perspective. R&D Management,1988,18 (3), 235-250.
[86]Lee, K., Lim, C. Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging:findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy,2001a,30(3),459-483.
[87]Lee, K., Lim, C. S. Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy,2001b,30 (3),459-483.
[88]Lee, P. M., O'Neill, H. M. Ownership structures and R&D investments of US and Japanese firms:Agency and stewardship perspectives. Academy of Management Journal,2003,46(2),212-225.
[89]Lee, Y.'Technology transfer' and the research university:a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy,1996,25 (6), 843-863.
[90]Leiblein, M. J., Madsen. T. L. Unbundling competitive heterogeneity:incentive structures and capability influences on technological innovation. Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(7),711-735.
[91]Leiponen, A., Drejer, I. What exactly are technological regimes?:Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities. Research Policy,2007, 36(8),1221-1238.
[92]Levin, R. C. Technical change, barriers to entry, and market structure. Economica, 1978,45(180),347-361.
[93]Levin, R. C., Cohen, W. M., Mowery, D. C. R & D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure:New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses. The American Economic Review,1985,75(2),20-24.
[94]Li, S., Tallman, S. MNC strategies, exogenous shocks, and performance outcomes. Strategic Management Journal,2011,32(10),1119-1127.
[95]Love, J., Chandra, R. An Index of Openness and its Relationship with Growth in India. The Journal of Developing Areas,2004,38(1),37-54.
[96]Love, J. H., Roper, S., Bryson, J. R. Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services. Research Policy,2011,40(10),1438-1452.
[97]Lu, Y., Tsang, E. W., Peng, M. W. Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific:Toward an institution-based view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2008,25(3),361-374.
[98]Lucas Jr, R. E. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of monetary economics,1988,22(1),3-42.
[99]Luoma, T., Paasi, J., Valkokari, K. Intellectual Property In Inter-Organisational Relationships—Findings From An Interview Study. International Journal of Innovation Management,2010,14(03),399-414.
[100]Macdougall, G. D. A. The Benefits And Costs Of Private Investment From Abroad:A Theoretical Approachl. Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Economics & Statistics,1960,22(3),189-211.
[101]Malerba, F., Nelson, R., Orsenigo, L., Winter, S. Competition and industrial policies in a [`]history friendly' model of the evolution of the computer industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2001,19 (5),635-664.
[102]Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. Technological Regimes and Firm Behavior. Industrial & Corporate Change,1993,2(1),45-72.
[103]Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific. Research Policy,1996,25(3),451-478.
[104]Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities. Industrial & Corporate Change,1997,6(1),83-117.
[105]Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L., Peretto, P. Persistence of innovative activities, sectoral patterns of innovation and international technological specialization. International Journal of Industrial Organization,1997,15(6),801-826.
[106]Marsili, O. Technological Regimes and Sources of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,2002,19(3),217.
[107]Marsili, O., Verspagen, B. Technological regimes and innovation:looking for regularities in Dutch manufacturing. Citeseer,2001.
[108]Mathews, J. A. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm:A resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2002,19(4),467-488.
[109]Mathews, J. A., Cho, D. S. Combinative capabilities and organizational learning in latecomer firms:The case of the Korean semiconductor industry. Journal of World Business,1999,34(2),139-156.
[110]May, P. J., Jochim, A. E., Sapotichne, J. Constructing Homeland Security:An Anemic Policy Regime. Policy Studies Journal,2011,39 (2),285-307.
[111]McGrattan, E. R., Prescott, E. C. Openness, technology capital, and development. Journal of Economic Theory,2009,144(6),2454-2476.
[112]Medcof, J. W. Resource-based strategy and managerial power in networks of internationally dispersed technology units. Strategic Management Journal,2001, 22(11),999-1012.
[113]Mikyung, Y. Subcontracting relations in the Korean automotive industry:risk sharing and technological capability. International Journal of Industrial Organization,1999,17(1),81-108.
[114]Mu, Q., Lee, K. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up:The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy, 2005,34(6),759-783.
[115]Nagarajan, A., Mitchell, W. Evolutionary diffusion:internal and external methods used to acquire encompassing, complementary, and incremental technological changes in the lithotripsy industry. Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19(11),1063-1077.
[116]Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Woo, C. Y. Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(7),651-666.
[117]Pammolli, F., Riccaboni, M. Technological Regimes and the Growth of Networks:An Empirical Analysis. Small Business Economics,2002,19 (3), 205.
[118]Park, K.-H., Lee, K. Linking the technological regime to the technological catch-up:analyzing Korea and Taiwan using the US patent data. Industrial & Corporate Change,2006,15(4),715-753.
[119]Pavitt, K. Sectoral patterns of technical change:Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy,1984,13(6),343-373.
[120]Pei-Chou, L., Deng-Shing, H. Technological Regimes and Firm Survival: Evidence Across Sectors and Over Time. Small Business Economics,2008,30 (2),175-186.
[121]Peng, M. W. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. The Academy of Management Review,2003,28(2),275-296.
[122]Peng, M. W., Sun, L. S., Brian, P., Hao, C. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2009,23 (3),63-81.
[123]Perez, C., Soete, L. Catching up in technology:entry barriers and windows of opportunity. Technical change and economic theory,1988,458-479.
[124]Podobnik, B. Toward a Sustainable Energy Regime:A Long-Wave Interpretation of Global Energy Shifts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1999,62(3),155-172.
[125]Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(1),116-145.
[126]Prencipe, A. Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS:the case of the aircraft engine control system. Research Policy,2000,29 (7),895-911.
[127]Quah, D. T., Rauch, J. E. Openness and the rate of economic growth. San Diego: University of California,1990.
[128]Quan, X. Knowledge diffusion from MNC R&D labs in developing countries: evidence from interaction between MNC R&D labs and local universities in Beijing. International Journal of Technology Management,2010,51 (2), 364-386.
[129]Ram, R. Openness, country size, and government size:Additional evidence from a large cross-country panel. Journal of Public Economics,2009,93 (1), 213-218.
[130]Raven, R. Co-evolution of waste and electricity regimes:Multi-regime dynamics in the Netherlands (1969-2003). Energy Policy,2007,35 (4), 2197-2208.
[131]Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F. Technological regimes and the evolution of networks of innovators. Lessons from biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Technology Management,2003,25(3/4),334.
[132]Ritchie, B. K. Economic upgrading in a state-coordinated, liberal market economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2009,26(3),435-457.
[133]Rothaermel, F. T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22 (6-7), 687-699.
[134]Saviotti, P. P., Mani, G.S. Technological evolution, self-organization and knowledge. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,1998,9 (2), 255-270.
[135]Schoors, K., van der Tol, B. The productivity effect of foreign ownership on domestic firms in Hungary. EAE Conference in Philadelphia, PA,2001.
[136]Schoors, K., Van Der Tol, B. Foreign direct investment spillovers within and between sectors:Evidence from Hungarian data. Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium,2002/157, 2002.
[137]Schumpeter, J. A. Socialism, capitalism and democracy. Harper and Brothers, 1942.
[138]Shane, S. Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management science, 2001,47(9),1173-1190.
[139]Sjoholm. F. Technology gap. competition and spillovers from direct foreign investment:evidence from establishment data. The Journal of Development Studies,1999,36(1),53-73.
[140]Smeds, R. Implementation of business process innovations:an agenda for research and action. International Journal of Technology Management,2001,22 (1),1-12.
[141]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[142]Tseng, C.-Y. Technology development and knowledge spillover in Africa: evidence using patent and citation data. International Journal of Technology Management,2009,45(1),50-61.
[143]Tylecote, A. The role of finance and corporate governance in national systems of innovation. Organization Studies,2007,28(10),1461-1481.
[144]Utterback, J. M., Abernathy, W. J. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega,1975,3(6),639-656.
[145]Van de Poel, I. The transformation of technological regimes. Research Policy, 2003,32(1),49-68.
[146]Van den Ende, J., Kemp, R. Technological transformations in history:how the computer regime grew out of existing computing regimes. Research Policy,1999, 28(8),833-851.
[147]van Dijk, M. Technological regimes and industrial dynamics:the evidence from Dutch manufacturing. Industrial & Corporate Change,2000,9(2),173.
[148]Vertova, G. National technological specialisation and the highest technological opportunities historically. Technovation,2001,21(9),605-612.
[149]Wei, J., Malik, K., Shou, Y. A pattern of enhancing innovative knowledge capabilities:Case study of a Chinese telecom manufacturer.2005,17(3), 355-365.
[150]Weinhold, D., Rauch, J. Openness,Specialization, and Productivity Growth in Less Developed Countries. Canadian Journal of Economics,1999,32 (4), 1009-1036.
[151]Wersching, K. Schumpeterian competition, technological regimes and learning through knowledge spillover. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2010,75(3),482-493.
[152]Weterings, A., Boschma, R. Does spatial proximity to customers matter for innovative performance?:Evidence from the Dutch software sector. Research Policy,2009,38(5),746-755.
[153]Woerter, M., Roper, S. Openness and innovation—Home and export demand effects on manufacturing innovation:Panel data evidence for Ireland and Switzerland. Research Policy,2010,39(1),155-164.
[154]Wong, P. K. National innovation systems for rapid technological catch-up:An analytical framework and a comparative analysis of Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Rebild:DRUID Summer Conference,1999.
[155]Xu, Q., Chen, J., Guo, B. Perspective of technological innovation and technology management in China. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on,1998,45(4),381-387.
[156]Yang, J., Rui, M., Wang, J. Enhancing the firm's innovation capability through knowledge management:a study of high technology firms in China. International Journal of Technology Management,2006,36(4),305-317.
[157]Yao, Y. Spatial overlap of regional innovation capability and high-tech industry. International Journal of Technology Management,2004,28(3),615-632.
[158]Zahra, S. A., George, G. Absorptive Capacity:A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. The Academy of Management Review,2002,27 (2),185-203.
[159]Zhang, Y., Li, H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster:the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31 (1),88-109.
[160]别华荣.基于技术体制的企业技术战略与创新绩效关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[161]陈文健.基于波特钻石模型的中国建筑业国际竞争优势分析.建筑经济,2011,1,004.
[162]邓寿鹏.技术创新的发展跟踪与未来预测.未来与发展,1990,(05),24-27.
[163]杜健,吴晓波,黄娟.技术体制框架下FDI影响产业技术边缘化的研究——以中国手机行业为例.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008,No.72(01),1-8.
[164]顾新,李久平,石娟.四川省产业结构演变特征分析.软科学,2001,(01),59-62+67.
[165]洪勇.追赶战略下后发国家制造业技术能力提升研究.博士学位论文,大连理工大学,2009.
[166]江诗松,龚丽敏,魏江.转型经济背景下后发企业的能力追赶：一个共演模型——以吉利集团为例.管理世界,2011,(04),122-137.
[167]蒋殿春,张宇.行业特征与外商直接投资的技术溢出效应：基于高新技术产业的经验分析.世界经济,2006,(10),21-9+95.
[168]焦少飞.产业技术能力及其提升研究.博士学位论文,西北大学,2010.
[169]康继军,张宗益,傅蕴英.开放经济下的经济增长模型：中国的经验.数量经济技术经济研究,2007,(01),3-12+21.
[170]李平.国际技术扩散对发展中国家技术进步的影响：机制、效果及对策分析.上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007.
[171]李正卫.基于技术能力之上的技术追赶战略动态模式.自然辩证法研究,2005,(01),58-62.
[172]梁大鹏,吴伟伟,王志刚,腾超.产业技术能力与技术管理能力的协同区间及测度模型.科学决策,2009,(11),60-64+77.
[173]刘旭明,王毅,吴贵生.我国产业技术战略研究.科研管理,2001,(05),13-19.
[174]柳卸林.我国产业创新的成就与挑战.中国软科学,2002,(12),110-114+135.
[175]路江涌.外商直接投资对内资企业效率的影响和渠道.经济研究,2008,(06),95-106.
[176]马晓河.中国汽车产业的对外开放与发展.改革,2005,(09),5-12.
[177]邱斌,杨帅,辛培江.FDI技术溢出渠道与中国制造业生产率增长研究：基于面板数据的分析.世界经济,2008,(08),20-31.
[178]宋耘,曾进泽.技术体制对企业自主创新程度影响的实证研究.学术研究,2007,No.271(06),56-62.
[179]孙晓华,李传杰.有效需求规模、双重需求结构与产业创新能力——来自中国装备制造业的证据.科研管理,2010,(01),93-103.
[180]孙学文.中国29年来对外开放、创办“三资”企业的分析研究报告.http://www.globalview.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=15210, 2011.6.19/2012.12.21.
[181]孙耀吾,胡林辉,胡志勇.技术标准化能力链：高技术产业技术能力研究新维度.财经理论与实践,2007,(06),95-99.
[182]陶新桂.论产业结构演进中的制度创新.商业时代,2008,(10),84-85.
[183]王丹青.装备制造企业技术能力成长路径研究.硕士学位论文,大连理工 大学,2006.
[184]王方瑞.基于技术变革分类的技术追赶过程研究.管理工程学报,2011,(04),235-42.
[185]王夏阳,陈功玉.技术变革对供应链管理的影响——以RFID技术应用为例.科技管理研究,2006,(01),76-80.
[186]王小强.对外开放环境中我国产业发展值得研究的几个问题.管理世界,1997,(03),82-98+219-220.
[187]王彦,李纪珍,吴贵生.中国光纤光缆产业技术能力提高：逆向技术学习.科研管理,2007,(04),1-8.
[188]王毅,吴贵生,刘旭明.加入WTO后我国产业技术发展战略与应对模式.中国科技论坛,2001,(02),12-17.
[189]卫兴华.经济全球化与中国经济社会的科学发展.管理学刊,2011,(06),1-3.
[190]魏江.知识学习与企业技术能力增长.北京：科学出版社,2006.
[191]魏江,葛朝阳.组织技术能力增长轨迹研究.科学学研究,2001,(02),69-75.
[192]吴贵生.技术引进与自主创新.北京：知识产权出版社,2010.
[193]吴贵生,李纪珍,孙议政.技术创新网络和技术外包.科研管理,2000,(04),-33-43.
[194]吴贵生,谢伟.我国技术管理学科发展的战略思考.科研管理,2006，26(6),49-55.
[195]吴晓波，黄娟.技术体制对FDI溢出效应的影响：基于中国制造业的计量分析.科研管理,2007,No.150(05)，18-24+51.
[196]向吉英,危旭芳.全球价值链治理、层级跃迁与产业升级——基于深圳钟表业产业变迁的考察.广东行政学院学报,2011,(04),66-71.
[197]谢伟.产业技术学习过程.博士学位论文,清华大学,1999a.
[198]谢伟.技术学习过程的新模式.科研管理,1999b,(04)，1-7.
[199]许庆瑞,魏江.企业技术变革能力形成的前提与过程.管理工程学报,1997,(S1),66-70.
[200]许治,师萍.我国汽车产业技术能力发展战略.中国软科学,2005,(05),126-129+125.
[201]杨丹辉.全球化、服务外包与后起国家产业升级路径的变化：印度的经验及其启示.经济社会体制比较,2010,(04),160-165.
[202]殷,罗.K.案例研究：设计与方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004.
[203]于惊涛,孙英.政府合作政策在新兴产业技术能力体系构建过程中作用的分析.技术经济,2004,(03),20-21.
[204]张春勋.我国汽车零部件产业技术创新能力提升路径.重庆工商大学学报(西部论坛),2007,(03),104-108.
[205]张米尔,田丹,杨阿猛.技术合作中的装备制造企业技术能力成长.研究与发展管理,2006,(01),13-18+25.
[206]张云龙.技术体制对行业技术创新活动影响的研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[207]浙江省建筑业管理局.浙江建筑业发展报告(2011).浙江省建筑业管理局,2012.
[208]周咏秋.我国数控机床产业技术能力成长路径研究.华商,2007,(28),80+79.
[209]朱正威,黎亮,邵国强.发展中国家企业技术能力的演化轨迹.西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(03),30-34.
1 翻译自Dr. Dundar F. Kocaoglu2012年7月在浙江大学的讲座"Technology era driven by konwlege"。
1 关于技术范式、技术体制与技术轨道之间的层次关系与区别,后来有学者专门进行过研究,可见于[18]
Castellacci, F. Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories:Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy,2008,37(6-7),978-994.
1 数据来源：[161]陈文健.基于波特钻石模型的中国建筑业国际竞争优势分析.建筑经济,2011,1,004.
1 数据来源：投资台州网：http://www.investaizhou.gov.cn/investaizhou/info/02_yy.php
[1]Aitken, B. J., Harrison, A. E. Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American economic review,1999,89(3), 605-618.
[2]Amit, R., Zott, C. Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 2001,22(6-7),493-520.
[3]Audretsch, D. B. New-firm survival and the technological regime. Review of Economics & Statistics,1991,73(3),441.
[4]Barrios, S., Strobl, E. Learning by doing and spillovers:Evidence from firm-level panel data. Review of Industrial Organization,2004,25(2),175-203.
[5]Bekaert, G., Harvey, C. R., Lundblad, C. Financial openness and productivity. World Development,2011,39(1),1-19.
[6]Bell, M., Marin, A. Where do foreign direct investment-related technology spillovers come from in emerging economies? An exploration in Argentina in the 1990s. The European Journal of Development Research,2004,16(3),653-686.
[7]Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M. The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy,2011,40 (1), 81-93.
[8]Blalock, G. Technology from foreign direct investment:strategic transfer through supply chains. Empirical Investigations in International Trade Conference at Purdue University,2001.
[9]Blomstrom. M., Kokko, A. The impact of foreign investment on host countries:A review of the empirical evidence. Policy Research Working Paper,1996.
[10]Blomstrom. M., Kokko, A. Foreign direct investment and spillovers of technology. International Journal of Technology Management,2001,22 (5), 435-454.
[11]Blomstrom. M., Sjoholm, F. Technology transfer and spillovers:does local participation with multinationals matter? European economic review,1999,43 (4),915-923.
[12]Blomstrom, M., Wolff, E. N. Multinational corporations and productivity convergence in Mexico. National Bureau of Economic Research,1994.
[13]Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., Lee, J.-W. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of international Economics,1998,45 (1), 115-135.
[14]Brulhart, M. The spatial effects of trade openness:a survey. Review of World Economics,2011,147(1),59-83.
[15]Breschi, S., Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. The economic journal,2000,110(463),388-410.
[16]Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M., Wheelwright, S. C. Strategic management of technology and innovation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin,2008.
[17]Castellacci, F. Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth. Industrial & Corporate Change,2007,16(6),1105-1145.
[18]Castellacci, F. Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories:Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy,2008,37(6-7),978-994.
[19]Caves, R. E. Multinational Firms, Competition, and Productivity in Host-Country Markets. Economica,1974,41(162),176-193.
[20]Chang-Wook Kim, J. A., Keun, L. Innovation, technological regimes and organizational selection in industry evolution:a'history friendly model' of the DRAM industry. Industrial & Corporate Change,2003,12(6),1195-1221.
[21]Chang, R., Kaltani, L., Loayza, N. Openness can be good for growth:The role of policy complementarities. National Bureau of Economic Research,2005.
[22]Cho, H.-D., Lee, J.-K. The developmental path of networking capability of catch-up players in Korea's semiconductor industry. R&D Management,2003, 33(4),411-423.
[23]Christopoulos, D., McAdam, P. Openness, Efficiency and Technology:An Industry Assessment. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,2013,60 (1),56-70.
[24]Coff, R. W. The coevolution of rent appropriation and capability development. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(7),711-733.
[25]Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive Capacity:A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35 (1), 128-152.
[26]Cooke, P., Wills, D. Small firms, social capital and the enhancement of business performance through innovation programmes. Small Business Economics,1999, 13(3),219-234.
[27]Cristina, C. The Acquisition of Firm Technological Capabilities in Mexico's Open Economy, The Case of Vitro. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2001,66(1),75-85.
[28]Czarnitzki, D., Spielkamp, A. Business services in Germany:bridges for innovation. The Service Industries Journal,2003,23(2),1-30.
[29]Dahlman, C. J., Ross-Larson, B., Westphal, L. E. Managing technological development:lessons from the newly industrializing countries. World Development,1987,15(6),759-775.
[30]Dasgupta, P., Stiglitz, J. Uncertainty, industrial structure, and the speed of R&D. The Bell Journal of Economics,1980,11(1),1-28.
[31]Del Gatto, M., Ottaviano, G. I., Pagnini, M. Openness to trade and industry cost dispersion:evidence from a panel of italian firms. Journal of Regional Science, 2008,48(1),97-129.
[32]Delmas, M., Tokat, Y. Deregulation, governance structures, and efficiency:the U.S. electric utility sector. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26 (5),441-460.
[33]Dieleman, M., Sachs, W. M. Coevolution of institutions and corporations in emerging economies:How the Salim group morphed into an institution of Suharto's crony regime. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45 (7), 1274-1300.
[34]Dimelis, S. P. Spillovers from foreign direct investment and firm growth: Technological, financial and market structure effects. International Journal of the Economics of Business,2005,12(1),85-104.
[35]Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories:A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy,1982,11 (3),147-162.
[36]Dosi, G. Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of economic literature,1988,26(3),1120-1171.
[37]Edwards, S. Openness, trade liberalization, and growth in developing countries. Journal of economic literature,1993,31(3),1358-1393.
[38]Edwards, S. Openness, productivity and growth:what do we really know? The economic journal,1998,108(447),383-398.
[39]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review,1989a,,532-550.
[40]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review,1989b,14(4),532-550.
[41]Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E. Theory building from cases:Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE,2007,50 (1), 25-32.
[42]Fabienne, F. FDI and technology transfer. In The costs and benefits of FDI, OECD (ed.), Paris:OECD,2001.
[43]Fang, E. Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing,2008,72 (4),90-104.
[44]Gorg, H., Greenaway, D. Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment? The World Bank Research Observer, 2004,19(2),171-197.
[45]Gao, X. Technological capability catching up:follow the normal way or deviate. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,2003.
[46]Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R. Transformative capacity:Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15 (5), 365-385.
[47]Grossman, G. M., Helpman, E. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. The Review of Economic Studies,1991,58(1),43-61.
[48]Guerrieri, P., Pietrobelli, C. Industrial districts' evolution and technological regimes:Italy and Taiwan. Technovation,2004,24(11),899-914.
[49]Haas, M. R. The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organization. Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(5),989-1008.
[50]Haddad, M., Harrison, A. Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment?:Evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics,1993,42(1),51-74.
[51]Hadjilambrinos, C. Technological regimes:an analytical framework for the evaluation of technological systems. Technology in Society,1998,20 (2), 179-194.
[52]Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Peterson, K., Monczka, R. M. Involving suppliers in new product development? California management review,1999, 42,59-82.
[53]Helfat, C. E., Peteraf, M. A. The dynamic resource-based view:capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24 (10),997-1010.
[54]Hobday, M. East Asian latecomer firms:learning the technology of electronics. World Development,1995a,23(7),1171-1193.
[55]Hobday, M. Innovation in East Asia:the challenge to Japan. Aldershot, London, 1995b,
[56]Hobday, M. Firm-level innovation models:perspectives on research in developed and developing countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2005, 17(2),121-146.
[57]Iammarino, S., McCann, P. The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Research Policy,2006,35 (7),1018-1036.
[58]Inkpen, A. C., Pien, W. An examination of collaboration and knowledge transfer: China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park. Journal of Management Studies,2006, 43(4),779-811.
[59]Javorcik, B. S. Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. The American Economic Review,2004,94(3),605-627.
[60]Jiang, L., Tan, J., Thursby, M. Incumbent firm invention in emerging fields: evidence from the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal,2011, 32(1),55-75.
[61]Kale, D., Little, S. From Imitation to Innovation:The Evolution of R&D Capabilities and Learning Processes in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2007,19(5),589-609.
[62]Kast, F. E., Rosenzweig, J. E. Organization and management:A systems and contingency approach. McGraw-Hill New York,1979.
[63]Kaufmann, A., Todtling, F. Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation:the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy,2001,30(5),791-804.
[64]Kearney, A. Inc., and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2002), Globalization's last hurrah. Foreign Policy,2003,,38-51.
[65]Kim, L. Stages of development of industrial technology in a developing country: a model. Research Policy,1980,9(3),254-277.
[66]Kim, L. Imitation to innovation:the dynamics of Korea's technological learning. Harvard Business Press,1997.
[67]Kim, L. Crisis construction and organizational learning:Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization science,1998,9(4),506-521.
[68]Kim, L. Building technological capability for industrialization:analytical frameworks and Korea's experience. Industrial & Corporate Change,1999,8(1), 111.
[69]King, A. A., Shaver, J. M. Are aliens green? Assessing foreign establishments' environmental conduct in the United states. Strategic Management Journal,2001, 22(11),1069-1085.
[70]Kinoshita, Y. Technology spillovers through foreign direct investment. CERGE-EI Working Paper,1999
[71]Kinoshita, Y. R&D and technology spillovers via FDI:Innovation and absorptive capacity.2000,
[72]Klepper, S. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The American Economic Review,1996,86(3),562-583.
[73]Ko, D.-G., Kirsch, L. J., King, W. R. Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS quarterly,2005, 29(1),59-85.
[74]Kokko, A. Foreign direct investment, host country characteristics and spillovers. Stockholm School of Economics,1992.
[75]Kokko, A. Technology, market characteristics, and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics,1994,43(2),279-293.
[76]Kokko, A., Tansini, R., Zejan, M. C. Local technological capability and productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. The Journal of Development Studies,1996,32(4),602-611.
[77]Kumaresan, N., Miyazaki, K. Management and Policy Concerns over Shifts in Innovation Trajectories:The Case of the Japanese Robotics Industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2001,13(3),433-462.
[78]Lall, S. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Development, 1992,20(2),165-186.
[79]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., Pathak, S. The Reification of Absorptive Capacity:A Critical Review and Rejuvenation of the Construct. The Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[80]Laursen, K., Salter, A. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2),131-150.
[81]Lazonick, W. Indigenous innovation and economic development:Lessons from China's Leap into the Information Age. Industry and Innovation,2004,11 (4), 273-297.
[82]Lazonick, W., O'SULLIVAN, M. Organization, finance and international competition. Industrial and Corporate Change,1996,5(1),1-49.
[83]Lee, C., Lee, K., Pennings, J. M. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance:a study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7),615-640.
[84]Lee, H. Y., Ricci, L. A., Rigobon, R. Once again, is openness good for growth? Journal of Development Economics,2004,75(2),451-472.
[85]Lee, J., Bae, Z. t., Choi, D. k. Technology development processes:a model for a developing country with a global perspective. R&D Management,1988,18 (3), 235-250.
[86]Lee, K., Lim, C. Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging:findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy,2001a,30(3),459-483.
[87]Lee, K., Lim, C. S. Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy,2001b,30 (3),459-483.
[88]Lee, P. M., O'Neill, H. M. Ownership structures and R&D investments of US and Japanese firms:Agency and stewardship perspectives. Academy of Management Journal,2003,46(2),212-225.
[89]Lee, Y.'Technology transfer' and the research university:a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy,1996,25 (6), 843-863.
[90]Leiblein, M. J., Madsen. T. L. Unbundling competitive heterogeneity:incentive structures and capability influences on technological innovation. Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(7),711-735.
[91]Leiponen, A., Drejer, I. What exactly are technological regimes?:Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities. Research Policy,2007, 36(8),1221-1238.
[92]Levin, R. C. Technical change, barriers to entry, and market structure. Economica, 1978,45(180),347-361.
[93]Levin, R. C., Cohen, W. M., Mowery, D. C. R & D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure:New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses. The American Economic Review,1985,75(2),20-24.
[94]Li, S., Tallman, S. MNC strategies, exogenous shocks, and performance outcomes. Strategic Management Journal,2011,32(10),1119-1127.
[95]Love, J., Chandra, R. An Index of Openness and its Relationship with Growth in India. The Journal of Developing Areas,2004,38(1),37-54.
[96]Love, J. H., Roper, S., Bryson, J. R. Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services. Research Policy,2011,40(10),1438-1452.
[97]Lu, Y., Tsang, E. W., Peng, M. W. Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific:Toward an institution-based view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2008,25(3),361-374.
[98]Lucas Jr, R. E. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of monetary economics,1988,22(1),3-42.
[99]Luoma, T., Paasi, J., Valkokari, K. Intellectual Property In Inter-Organisational Relationships—Findings From An Interview Study. International Journal of Innovation Management,2010,14(03),399-414.
[100]Macdougall, G. D. A. The Benefits And Costs Of Private Investment From Abroad:A Theoretical Approachl. Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Economics & Statistics,1960,22(3),189-211.
[101]Malerba, F., Nelson, R., Orsenigo, L., Winter, S. Competition and industrial policies in a [`]history friendly' model of the evolution of the computer industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2001,19 (5),635-664.
[102]Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. Technological Regimes and Firm Behavior. Industrial & Corporate Change,1993,2(1),45-72.
[103]Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific. Research Policy,1996,25(3),451-478.
[104]Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities. Industrial & Corporate Change,1997,6(1),83-117.
[105]Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L., Peretto, P. Persistence of innovative activities, sectoral patterns of innovation and international technological specialization. International Journal of Industrial Organization,1997,15(6),801-826.
[106]Marsili, O. Technological Regimes and Sources of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,2002,19(3),217.
[107]Marsili, O., Verspagen, B. Technological regimes and innovation:looking for regularities in Dutch manufacturing. Citeseer,2001.
[108]Mathews, J. A. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm:A resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2002,19(4),467-488.
[109]Mathews, J. A., Cho, D. S. Combinative capabilities and organizational learning in latecomer firms:The case of the Korean semiconductor industry. Journal of World Business,1999,34(2),139-156.
[110]May, P. J., Jochim, A. E., Sapotichne, J. Constructing Homeland Security:An Anemic Policy Regime. Policy Studies Journal,2011,39 (2),285-307.
[111]McGrattan, E. R., Prescott, E. C. Openness, technology capital, and development. Journal of Economic Theory,2009,144(6),2454-2476.
[112]Medcof, J. W. Resource-based strategy and managerial power in networks of internationally dispersed technology units. Strategic Management Journal,2001, 22(11),999-1012.
[113]Mikyung, Y. Subcontracting relations in the Korean automotive industry:risk sharing and technological capability. International Journal of Industrial Organization,1999,17(1),81-108.
[114]Mu, Q., Lee, K. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up:The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy, 2005,34(6),759-783.
[115]Nagarajan, A., Mitchell, W. Evolutionary diffusion:internal and external methods used to acquire encompassing, complementary, and incremental technological changes in the lithotripsy industry. Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19(11),1063-1077.
[116]Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Woo, C. Y. Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(7),651-666.
[117]Pammolli, F., Riccaboni, M. Technological Regimes and the Growth of Networks:An Empirical Analysis. Small Business Economics,2002,19 (3), 205.
[118]Park, K.-H., Lee, K. Linking the technological regime to the technological catch-up:analyzing Korea and Taiwan using the US patent data. Industrial & Corporate Change,2006,15(4),715-753.
[119]Pavitt, K. Sectoral patterns of technical change:Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy,1984,13(6),343-373.
[120]Pei-Chou, L., Deng-Shing, H. Technological Regimes and Firm Survival: Evidence Across Sectors and Over Time. Small Business Economics,2008,30 (2),175-186.
[121]Peng, M. W. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. The Academy of Management Review,2003,28(2),275-296.
[122]Peng, M. W., Sun, L. S., Brian, P., Hao, C. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2009,23 (3),63-81.
[123]Perez, C., Soete, L. Catching up in technology:entry barriers and windows of opportunity. Technical change and economic theory,1988,458-479.
[124]Podobnik, B. Toward a Sustainable Energy Regime:A Long-Wave Interpretation of Global Energy Shifts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1999,62(3),155-172.
[125]Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(1),116-145.
[126]Prencipe, A. Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS:the case of the aircraft engine control system. Research Policy,2000,29 (7),895-911.
[127]Quah, D. T., Rauch, J. E. Openness and the rate of economic growth. San Diego: University of California,1990.
[128]Quan, X. Knowledge diffusion from MNC R&D labs in developing countries: evidence from interaction between MNC R&D labs and local universities in Beijing. International Journal of Technology Management,2010,51 (2), 364-386.
[129]Ram, R. Openness, country size, and government size:Additional evidence from a large cross-country panel. Journal of Public Economics,2009,93 (1), 213-218.
[130]Raven, R. Co-evolution of waste and electricity regimes:Multi-regime dynamics in the Netherlands (1969-2003). Energy Policy,2007,35 (4), 2197-2208.
[131]Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F. Technological regimes and the evolution of networks of innovators. Lessons from biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Technology Management,2003,25(3/4),334.
[132]Ritchie, B. K. Economic upgrading in a state-coordinated, liberal market economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2009,26(3),435-457.
[133]Rothaermel, F. T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22 (6-7), 687-699.
[134]Saviotti, P. P., Mani, G.S. Technological evolution, self-organization and knowledge. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,1998,9 (2), 255-270.
[135]Schoors, K., van der Tol, B. The productivity effect of foreign ownership on domestic firms in Hungary. EAE Conference in Philadelphia, PA,2001.
[136]Schoors, K., Van Der Tol, B. Foreign direct investment spillovers within and between sectors:Evidence from Hungarian data. Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium,2002/157, 2002.
[137]Schumpeter, J. A. Socialism, capitalism and democracy. Harper and Brothers, 1942.
[138]Shane, S. Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management science, 2001,47(9),1173-1190.
[139]Sjoholm. F. Technology gap. competition and spillovers from direct foreign investment:evidence from establishment data. The Journal of Development Studies,1999,36(1),53-73.
[140]Smeds, R. Implementation of business process innovations:an agenda for research and action. International Journal of Technology Management,2001,22 (1),1-12.
[141]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[142]Tseng, C.-Y. Technology development and knowledge spillover in Africa: evidence using patent and citation data. International Journal of Technology Management,2009,45(1),50-61.
[143]Tylecote, A. The role of finance and corporate governance in national systems of innovation. Organization Studies,2007,28(10),1461-1481.
[144]Utterback, J. M., Abernathy, W. J. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega,1975,3(6),639-656.
[145]Van de Poel, I. The transformation of technological regimes. Research Policy, 2003,32(1),49-68.
[146]Van den Ende, J., Kemp, R. Technological transformations in history:how the computer regime grew out of existing computing regimes. Research Policy,1999, 28(8),833-851.
[147]van Dijk, M. Technological regimes and industrial dynamics:the evidence from Dutch manufacturing. Industrial & Corporate Change,2000,9(2),173.
[148]Vertova, G. National technological specialisation and the highest technological opportunities historically. Technovation,2001,21(9),605-612.
[149]Wei, J., Malik, K., Shou, Y. A pattern of enhancing innovative knowledge capabilities:Case study of a Chinese telecom manufacturer.2005,17(3), 355-365.
[150]Weinhold, D., Rauch, J. Openness,Specialization, and Productivity Growth in Less Developed Countries. Canadian Journal of Economics,1999,32 (4), 1009-1036.
[151]Wersching, K. Schumpeterian competition, technological regimes and learning through knowledge spillover. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2010,75(3),482-493.
[152]Weterings, A., Boschma, R. Does spatial proximity to customers matter for innovative performance?:Evidence from the Dutch software sector. Research Policy,2009,38(5),746-755.
[153]Woerter, M., Roper, S. Openness and innovation—Home and export demand effects on manufacturing innovation:Panel data evidence for Ireland and Switzerland. Research Policy,2010,39(1),155-164.
[154]Wong, P. K. National innovation systems for rapid technological catch-up:An analytical framework and a comparative analysis of Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Rebild:DRUID Summer Conference,1999.
[155]Xu, Q., Chen, J., Guo, B. Perspective of technological innovation and technology management in China. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on,1998,45(4),381-387.
[156]Yang, J., Rui, M., Wang, J. Enhancing the firm's innovation capability through knowledge management:a study of high technology firms in China. International Journal of Technology Management,2006,36(4),305-317.
[157]Yao, Y. Spatial overlap of regional innovation capability and high-tech industry. International Journal of Technology Management,2004,28(3),615-632.
[158]Zahra, S. A., George, G. Absorptive Capacity:A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. The Academy of Management Review,2002,27 (2),185-203.
[159]Zhang, Y., Li, H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster:the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31 (1),88-109.
[160]别华荣.基于技术体制的企业技术战略与创新绩效关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[161]陈文健.基于波特钻石模型的中国建筑业国际竞争优势分析.建筑经济,2011,1,004.
[162]邓寿鹏.技术创新的发展跟踪与未来预测.未来与发展,1990,(05),24-27.
[163]杜健,吴晓波,黄娟.技术体制框架下FDI影响产业技术边缘化的研究——以中国手机行业为例.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008,No.72(01),1-8.
[164]顾新,李久平,石娟.四川省产业结构演变特征分析.软科学,2001,(01),59-62+67.
[165]洪勇.追赶战略下后发国家制造业技术能力提升研究.博士学位论文,大连理工大学,2009.
[166]江诗松,龚丽敏,魏江.转型经济背景下后发企业的能力追赶：一个共演模型——以吉利集团为例.管理世界,2011,(04),122-137.
[167]蒋殿春,张宇.行业特征与外商直接投资的技术溢出效应：基于高新技术产业的经验分析.世界经济,2006,(10),21-9+95.
[168]焦少飞.产业技术能力及其提升研究.博士学位论文,西北大学,2010.
[169]康继军,张宗益,傅蕴英.开放经济下的经济增长模型：中国的经验.数量经济技术经济研究,2007,(01),3-12+21.
[170]李平.国际技术扩散对发展中国家技术进步的影响：机制、效果及对策分析.上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007.
[171]李正卫.基于技术能力之上的技术追赶战略动态模式.自然辩证法研究,2005,(01),58-62.
[172]梁大鹏,吴伟伟,王志刚,腾超.产业技术能力与技术管理能力的协同区间及测度模型.科学决策,2009,(11),60-64+77.
[173]刘旭明,王毅,吴贵生.我国产业技术战略研究.科研管理,2001,(05),13-19.
[174]柳卸林.我国产业创新的成就与挑战.中国软科学,2002,(12),110-114+135.
[175]路江涌.外商直接投资对内资企业效率的影响和渠道.经济研究,2008,(06),95-106.
[176]马晓河.中国汽车产业的对外开放与发展.改革,2005,(09),5-12.
[177]邱斌,杨帅,辛培江.FDI技术溢出渠道与中国制造业生产率增长研究：基于面板数据的分析.世界经济,2008,(08),20-31.
[178]宋耘,曾进泽.技术体制对企业自主创新程度影响的实证研究.学术研究,2007,No.271(06),56-62.
[179]孙晓华,李传杰.有效需求规模、双重需求结构与产业创新能力——来自中国装备制造业的证据.科研管理,2010,(01),93-103.
[180]孙学文.中国29年来对外开放、创办“三资”企业的分析研究报告.http://www.globalview.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=15210, 2011.6.19/2012.12.21.
[181]孙耀吾,胡林辉,胡志勇.技术标准化能力链：高技术产业技术能力研究新维度.财经理论与实践,2007,(06),95-99.
[182]陶新桂.论产业结构演进中的制度创新.商业时代,2008,(10),84-85.
[183]王丹青.装备制造企业技术能力成长路径研究.硕士学位论文,大连理工 大学,2006.
[184]王方瑞.基于技术变革分类的技术追赶过程研究.管理工程学报,2011,(04),235-42.
[185]王夏阳,陈功玉.技术变革对供应链管理的影响——以RFID技术应用为例.科技管理研究,2006,(01),76-80.
[186]王小强.对外开放环境中我国产业发展值得研究的几个问题.管理世界,1997,(03),82-98+219-220.
[187]王彦,李纪珍,吴贵生.中国光纤光缆产业技术能力提高：逆向技术学习.科研管理,2007,(04),1-8.
[188]王毅,吴贵生,刘旭明.加入WTO后我国产业技术发展战略与应对模式.中国科技论坛,2001,(02),12-17.
[189]卫兴华.经济全球化与中国经济社会的科学发展.管理学刊,2011,(06),1-3.
[190]魏江.知识学习与企业技术能力增长.北京：科学出版社,2006.
[191]魏江,葛朝阳.组织技术能力增长轨迹研究.科学学研究,2001,(02),69-75.
[192]吴贵生.技术引进与自主创新.北京：知识产权出版社,2010.
[193]吴贵生,李纪珍,孙议政.技术创新网络和技术外包.科研管理,2000,(04),-33-43.
[194]吴贵生,谢伟.我国技术管理学科发展的战略思考.科研管理,2006，26(6),49-55.
[195]吴晓波，黄娟.技术体制对FDI溢出效应的影响：基于中国制造业的计量分析.科研管理,2007,No.150(05)，18-24+51.
[196]向吉英,危旭芳.全球价值链治理、层级跃迁与产业升级——基于深圳钟表业产业变迁的考察.广东行政学院学报,2011,(04),66-71.
[197]谢伟.产业技术学习过程.博士学位论文,清华大学,1999a.
[198]谢伟.技术学习过程的新模式.科研管理,1999b,(04)，1-7.
[199]许庆瑞,魏江.企业技术变革能力形成的前提与过程.管理工程学报,1997,(S1),66-70.
[200]许治,师萍.我国汽车产业技术能力发展战略.中国软科学,2005,(05),126-129+125.
[201]杨丹辉.全球化、服务外包与后起国家产业升级路径的变化：印度的经验及其启示.经济社会体制比较,2010,(04),160-165.
[202]殷,罗.K.案例研究：设计与方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004.
[203]于惊涛,孙英.政府合作政策在新兴产业技术能力体系构建过程中作用的分析.技术经济,2004,(03),20-21.
[204]张春勋.我国汽车零部件产业技术创新能力提升路径.重庆工商大学学报(西部论坛),2007,(03),104-108.
[205]张米尔,田丹,杨阿猛.技术合作中的装备制造企业技术能力成长.研究与发展管理,2006,(01),13-18+25.
[206]张云龙.技术体制对行业技术创新活动影响的研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[207]浙江省建筑业管理局.浙江建筑业发展报告(2011).浙江省建筑业管理局,2012.
[208]周咏秋.我国数控机床产业技术能力成长路径研究.华商,2007,(28),80+79.
[209]朱正威,黎亮,邵国强.发展中国家企业技术能力的演化轨迹.西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(03),30-34.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |