Technological Catching-Up in Machine Tools in India: Lessons from the East Asian Experience for Make In India
This study uses an innovation systems approach to identify constraints in technology diffusion in machine tools in India. Until early 1980s, government was a significant producer of conventional machine tools. But, with adoption of Computer Numeric Control (CNC) machine tool technology from early 1980s, the innovation system for CNC machine tools shows considerable changes. A review of successful catching-up in East Asian countries helps to identify distinctive features of industrial, technological and institutional structures that supported technology diffusion in these countries. The innovation systems framework shows that while the main actors and institutions are present, their roles are constrained by weak links. Strengthening interconnections in the innovation system requires policy initiatives that will eliminate regulatory and infrastructural constraints, foster supplier networks, build producer-user interface, strengthen industry-academia links and promote spatial cluster dynamics. Such policy measures can also contribute to growth of manufacturing sector and ensure success of the Make in India program. (original abstract)
- Amsden, A.H. (1977). The division of labour is limited by the type of market: The case of the Taiwanese machine tool industry. World Development, 5(3), 217-233.
- Amsden, A.H. (1985). The division of labour is limited by the rate of growth of the market: The Taiwan machine tool industry in the 1970s. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 9(3), 271-284.
- Arnold, H. (2001). The recent history of the machine tool industry and the effects of technological change (LMU Working Paper, 2001-14). Institute for Innovation Research and Technology Management, University of Munich.
- Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1(2), 93-118.
- Carlsson, B. (1984). The development and use of machine tools in historical perspective. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 5(1), 91-114.
- Chen, L.C. (2009). Learning through informal local and global linkages: The case of Taiwan's machine tool industry. Research Policy, 38(3), 527-535.
- Chen, L.C. (2011). The governance and evolution of local production networks in a cluster: The case of Taiwan's machine tool industry. GeoJournal, 76(6), 605-622.
- Chen, L.-C. (2014). Entrepreneurship, technological changes, and the formation of a subcontracting production system: the case of Taiwan's machine tool industry. Int. J. Economics and Business Research, 7(2), 198-219.
- Chuma, H. (2001). Sources of machine-tool industry leadership in the 1990s: overlooked intrafirm factors (Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 837). Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
- Chuma, H. (2003). Determinants of the shadow value of simultaneous information sharing in the Japanese machine-tool manufacturing industry. In E. Seiritsu Ogura, Toshiaki Tachibanaki and David A. Wise (Eds.), Labor markets and firm benefit policies in Japan and the United States (pp. 81-102). University of Chicago Press.
- Fagerberg, J. (1995). User-producer interaction, learning and comparative advantage. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 243-256.
- Finegold, D., Brendley, K.W., Lempert, R., Henry, D., Cannon, P.Boultinghouse, B., Nelson, M. (1994). The decline of the U.S. machine tool industry and prospects for its sustainable recovery. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
- Fransman, M. (1986). International competitiveness, technical change and the state: The machine tool industry in Taiwan and Japan. World Development, 14(12), 1375-1396.
- Freeman, C. (1995). The 'National System of Innovation' in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5-24.
- Gardner Research (2016). World Machine Tool Output and Consumption Survey. Gardner Publications. Cincinnati, OH.
- Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2006). A framework for guiding policy makers intervening in emerging innovation systems in 'catching up' countries. European Journal of Development Research, 4(18), 687-707.
- Jacobsson, S. (1993). The length of the infant industry period: Evidence from the engineering industry in South Korea. World Development, 21(3), 407-419.
- Make in India. (n.d.). Make in India, Government of India. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from http://www.makeinindia.com/.
- IMTMA (2008). Defining the role of government in trans-nationalization efforts of Indian SMEs in machine tool sector. Prepared for Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, Government of India. Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers ' Association (IMTMA). New Delhi.
- IMTMA. Various annual reports and data provided by IMTMA, www.imtma.in.
- Kalafsky, R.V., & MacPherson, A.D. (2006). The post-1990 rebirth of the US machine tool industry: A temporary recovery? Technovation, 26(5-6), 665-671.
- Lee, K., & Lim, C. (2001). Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: Findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy, 30(3), 459-483.
- Lee, K.R. (1996). The role of user firms in the innovation of machine tools: The Japanese case. Research Policy, 25(4), 491-507.
- Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publisher.
- Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247-264.
- Mandala, P.S. (2004). Strategic approach to strengthening the international competitiveness in knowledge based industries: non-electrical machinery industry (RIS-DP