Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Transitions
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/global-transitions/

Research Paper

Industrial revitalization via industry 4.0 e A comparative policy

analysis among China, Germany and the USA
Chu-Chi Kuo a, *, Joseph Z. Shyu a, c, Kun Ding b
a
Institute of Management of Technology, National Chiao Tung University, No. 1001 Ta-Hsueh Road, Hsinchu, 300, Taiwan
b
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Public Management and Law, Dalian University of Technology, No. 2 Linggong Road, Ganjingzi
District, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, 116024, China
c
Institute of Science Studies and S&T Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the second decade of the 21st century, rapid proliferation of technology and intensified global
Received 5 October 2018 competition have created a sense of urgency for governments of developed and developing nations alike
Received in revised form to engage in major industrial revitalization, leading to global emergence of something generically known
17 November 2018
of as Industry 4.0, with a core of industrial transformation, revitalization and development. These critical
Accepted 26 December 2018
Available online 19 March 2019
government programs are expected to drastically change the global structures of major industrial sectors.
This paper aims at developing a comparative analysis of innovation policy amid the industrial revitali-
zation of Industry 4.0 among China, Germany and the USA, with a focus on differentiation of specific
Keywords:
Industry 4.0
policy instruments announced by these governments for their preferential developments. This research
Innovation policy provides a theoretical analysis of innovation policy but adopts a rather pragmatic approach, with the
Industrial revitalization policy framework of Rothwell and Zegveld [3] adopted as a basis for the anatomy of innovation policies.
Policy instruments Results suggest that the policy orientation of the USA tends to favor demand-side policy, public ser-
vices, political and education and training policies, whereas policy preferences in Germany tends to favor
demand-side policy, public services, scientific and technical development and political ones; while it is
environmental-side policy, political, legal and regulatory, and public service policies for China. Due to all
policy tools are given equal weight in this cross-national analysis, the findings of this study may not
easily be generalized to all industrial sectors and may be subject to other interpretations.
© 2019 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction global manufacturing will face enormous challenges [1]. From

INDUSTRIE 4.0 concept originated at the Hannover Industrial
Fair in 2011, with the intention to raise the level of German
manufacturing through the application of new technologies such as
the Internet of Things. In 2013, the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO) and the Manufacturing
Research Institute of Cambridge University report“Emerging trends
in global manufacturing industries” pointed out that the future of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jashkuo.mt03g@nctu.edu.tw (C.-C. Kuo), joseph@cc.nctu.edu.
tw (J.Z. Shyu), dingk@dlut.edu.cn (K. Ding).
Production and Hosting by Elsevier on behalf of KeAi
the perspective of population structure, due to the extended life
expectancy of the population, fertility decline, and the resulting
demographic trend of aging society, changes in the proportion of
the labor force will affect the competitiveness of national
manufacturing. Therefore, many countries have put forward cor-
responding industry revitalization plans. Following Germany's
INDUSTRIE 4.0 policy [2], other countries have proposed similar
policies, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP)
[3,13] by USA, Industrial 4.1J [18] by Japan, Strategy for Innovation
in manufacturing industry 3.0 [16] by the Republic of Korea, Made
in China 2025 [4] by China, and Productivity 4.0 [17] by Taiwan.
Countries in this industrial tide of 4.0 each proposed corresponding
policy, but the policy details and industry areas differ from country
to country. This paper will compare and analyze the strategies put
forth in: Made in China 2025 [4], INDUSTRIE 4.0 [2] and Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership [3,13].
Manufacturing costs are one of the factors that affect

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2018.12.001
2589-7918/© 2019 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
4 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14
manufacturing competitiveness. According to the Boston Consul-
ting Group's report [5], the top three global manufacturing ex-
porters are China, Germany and USA. China ranks first, but its salary
and energy costs are substantially increasing; Germany, although
second, has much higher manufacturing cost than other countries.
The USA has the advantage of lower energy costs, productivity, and
only a small increase in labor pay, so the overall manufacturing
costs compared with China are almost the same and it will grad-
ually threaten China's leading position. The rise of Big Data, Internet
of Things, and Cloud Computing industry in science and technology
result in opportunities for global industrial strategic restructuring
and development of knowledge economy; this makes innovations
in servitization, intelligentization and platform centralization of
manufacturing a global trend. To achieve and explore the oppor-
tunities and challenges of Industry 4.0, enterprises must have new
strategies and management methods from the perspective of gov-
ernment policy, innovation models, and value chain restructuring
strategy, as well as innovative organizational structure.
In this context, we conduct a comparative study of innovation
policy within industrial revitalization via Industry 4.0 among the
USA, Germany and China. We examine the innovation policies
involved in implementing and developing industrial revitalization
via Industry 4.0 in the three different contexts. The study also
summarizes differences in how the three governments prioritize
their innovation policies to fulfill the vision of industrial revitali-
zation via Industry 4.0. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2
reviews the relevant literature on policy instruments and in-
troduces the recent developments in industrial revitalization via
Industry 4.0 policy. Section 3 explains the innovation policy
framework used in this study. The data survey and pattern
matching approach used in this research are presented in Section 4.
Sections 5 show the results of innovation policies for industrial
revitalization via Industry 4.0 for the USA, Germany and China,
respectively. In Section 6 the results are compared and discussed.
The practical implications and limitations of this study are dis-
cussed in Section 7 and conclusions are presented in Section 8.
2. Development of industrial revitalization policy
Innovation is a critical driving force behind the development of
national science and technology, but the risks are extremely high.
In the global competitive environment, the return rates on in-
vestment in innovation are highly uncertain, particularly for large-
scale integration systems or complex high-technology products. As
such, roles of governments become crucial, not only for the supply
of technology and peripherals, but also for facilitating needed in-
stitutions and infrastructure to enable developments in the de-
mand and environmental sides of the technology economy.
Experiences of advanced countries show that the most favorable
conditions for innovation and industry revitalization are an open
democratic society, well-developed national innovation systems
(including education, capital market, technology diffusion mecha-
nism, free competitive market, transportation and communication
systems), and appropriate public services regulations by the gov-
ernment [6]. The purpose of government intervention is to actively
promote proliferation of scientific and technological knowledge,
maintain proper operation of the market economy, and to ensure
that research and innovation activities do not conflict with the
public interest (regarding such as environmental protection and
public security, etc.). Governments can also adopt innovative pol-
icies to encourage cooperation, exchange and regional economic
integration through cooperative competition mechanisms and
decrees or set up regulations and institutions according to overall
economic policy, trade policy, industrial development policy, edu-
cation policy, labor policy and industrial innovation policy to ensure
fair competition among enterprises.
Governments integrate national science and technology re-
sources through policy tools, and enhance research and innovation
activities through industry development. Not only does the devel-
opment and implementation of science and technology policy
affect a country's overall scientific and technological development
and industrial environment, it also expedites the formation of na-
tional industrial competitiveness. The objectives of planning sci-
ence and technology policy are to strengthen the national
innovation systems to facilitate the rate of knowledge diffusion and
integration, link the technical needs of traditional industries,
enhance their scientific and technological capabilities, and assist in
industrial transformation. Through the implementation of science
and technology policy or industrial technology policy, and provi-
sion of the necessary resources for industry, industrial develop-
ment is promoted and becomes a driving force for social progress.
These resources comprise, on the one hand, planning the market
mechanisms to promote industrial innovation and, on the other
hand, managing the activities of counseling industry competition.
Although government organizations play a pivotal role in coun-
seling industry development, the demand for resources and pol-
icies varies according to the competition objectives and particular
industries' conditions. Therefore, how government can assist in-
dustry to develop the enabling technology to help complete a
global operations system, construct a professional knowledge
platform, and link up the interface of industry, enterprise and na-
tional innovation system to achieve the goal of industrial technol-
ogy upgrades, all depends on the national innovation system and
industry portfolio planning. From the perspective of industry
development and revitalization, policy is a specific means for the
government to intervene in the development of science and tech-
nology. In terms of resource investment, research and develop-
ment, and market norms, government policies will have an impact
on enterprise and industry [7e9].
Literature on industrial revitalization via Industry 4.0 is mainly
focused on industrial technology development, business models,
market analysis and case analysis. Lee, Bagheri, and Kao [10] note
that recent advances in manufacturing industry have paved the
way for the deployment of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), within
which information from all related perspectives are closely moni-
tored and synchronized between the physical factory floor and the
cyber computational space. Lin [11] states that target strategies
vary because of the differences in the manufacturing base of each
country. At this stage, it is clear that the direction of cooperation is
to optimize the effectiveness of existing automation equipment
through a variety of pilot projects, to promote intelligent digitali-
zation of factories, and to strengthen the data transmission process
both upstream and downstream in supply chains. In an example
from Taiwan, Hu [12] points out that, facing the trend of global
automated production methods, industry must determine how to
respond to the impact and influence of new technology, either
introducing new automated production models or maintaining
original models with appropriate technology import.
Revitalization of manufacturing has become an important na-
tional policy in all countries. The USA announced the launch of AMP
[3,13], an advanced manufacturing national policy plan to promote
US manufacturing reflows in order to create domestic employment
opportunities and rebuild manufacturing competitiveness. The UK
has been promoting high-value manufacturing strategies [14] since
2012, arguing that high-value manufacturing is the leading tech-
nology used in product creation, manufacturing processes and so-
cial services. In 2013, Germany promoted INDUSTRIE 4.0 [2], hoping
to develop a new generation of virtual reality integrated
manufacturing technology, and to maintain Germany's advantages
in the global manufacturing sector. In the same year, Japan
 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14
launched an industry revitalization plan [15], hoping to make Japan
the most suitable environment for enterprises to carry out service
activities. Through the promotion of investment on equipment and
research and development, this aims to revitalize the Japanese
manufacturing industry. In June 2014, South Korea proposed a In-
dustry Innovation Movement (IIM) 3.0 strategy [16] to inspire
South Korea's manufacturing transformation and development.
Wang [19] reports that the Taiwan government developed Pro-
ductivity 4.0 strategy program and policy in reference to Germany's
INDUSTRIE 4.0 plan to help upgrade the manufacturing industry. In
October 2014, USA launched AMP2.0 [20], expecting to continue to
promote innovation, personnel training and shaping the industrial
environment. In May 2015, China's State Council announced the
Made in China 2025 Program [4], which focuses on nine key tasks
and ten key applications, investments in technology research and
development and industrial development, with expectations to
transform from the current status of manufacturing country into
manufacturing power by 2025.
With the progress of science and technology and the Internet,
cloud computing and other emerging industries, manufacturing
intelligence is an important countermeasure in response to rising
labor costs and changing consumption habits. Though still in the
embryonic stage, Industry 4.0 will change the current business
model of manufacturing and lead the development of related
emerging industries. It is very difficult to have a consistent clear
definition of Industry 4.0 due to variation among countries and
industries. However, in general, Industry 4.0 is a System of Systems
(SoS) which covers a number of interactive subsystems; it's the
interactive mode of which forms a whole giant system. Industry 4.0
is not a single industrial plant, but the structure of the industrial
chain. Different from the traditional industrial chain, Industry 4.0 is
the ecosystem after industry integration and fusion. A smart plant
that conforms to Industry 4.0 is known as factory 4.0.
In today's global businesses, the primary task is to effectively
respond to market demand with rapid and flexible production and
create value for goods and services. Global enterprises are also
facing the difficult problems that the population of developed
countries has aged, the labor force is reduced, operating costs have
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the Four Industrial Revolutions.
Source: Manufacturing Operations Management [21].
5
risen, the life cycle of products or services has shortened, and the
market demand changes rapidly. Faced with those problems, major
countries in the world hope for a smooth transition of related in-
dustries; so the fourth industrial revolution will be new thinking
about the governance and the strategic layout of industrial
upgrading. Fig. 1 shows the cycle of global industrial revolutions
[21]. From the 18th century onwards, the first industrial revolution
- driven by the development of the steam engine - opened the era
of replacing the manual production with the machine. The second
industrial revolution in the early twentieth century - powered by
the large-scale application of electricity power and the innovative
process of assembly line production - increased the production
capacity and created a mass production model. The third industrial
revolution began with the development of information technology
in 1970. Production processes were further impacted by automated
production methods, resulting in huge changes in the industrial
and human aspects of life. In recent years, INDUSTRIE 4.0 working
group, composed of Siegfried Dais of Robert Roberts GmbH and
Kagermann of Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, advised the
German Federal Government on the implementation of INDUSTRIE
4.0 [2], which was formed under the influence of German academia
and industry. Based on the manufacturing industry in Germany, the
introduction of the Internet of Things and service-oriented thinking
into the manufacturing industry, and creating CPS associated with
resources, information, goods and people, has triggered the fourth
industrial revolution.
2.1. The USA's industrial revitalization policy
According to the research results of the World Economic Fo-
rum's “Future of Manufacturing: Opportunity to Drive Economic
Growth” [22] in April 2012, low labor costs in manufacturing are no
longer as important as before and the global manufacturing in-
dustry is facing a critical moment in the transition of the supply
chain. Since the 90s reform and opening success, China has become
the world's largest manufacturing base and producing country.
American manufacturing industries began to flock to China, which
led to a rising unemployment rate in the USA, gradual widening of
6 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14

the trade deficit, loss of the basis for continuous innovation, over-
reliance on overseas OEM and other issues, which set off a wave
of re-industrialization and manufacturing return wave. Former US
President Obama took office, not only proceeding to revive the US
manufacturing industry, but also further consolidating the leading
position of advanced manufacturing technology in the US. There-
fore, the US government is currently pursuing an aggressive policy
to support the new development path of manufacturing and ensure
the ability to innovate as well as invent in the US, promoting ‘made
in the USA’ branding and providing high quality and high paid job
opportunities for the US labor force.
In June 2011, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) presented the report “Ensuring American
Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing” [3]. Then President Obama
launched the AMP program, establishing a dedicated AMP Steering
Committee under PCAST. AMP's mission is to call for a partnership
between government, industry, and academia to identify the most
pressing challenges and transformative opportunities to improve
the technologies, processes and products across multiple
manufacturing industries. The AMP Steering Committee 2012
report grouped its 16 recommendations into three categories [13]:
(1) Enabling innovation, (2) Securing the talent pipeline, and (3)
Improving the business climate. The President's plan included
legislative proposals and executive actions already being imple-
mented across all three of these categories, as shown in Table 1.
In response to Section 102 of the America COMPETES Reautho-
rization Act of 2010 [23], which directs the Committee on Tech-
nology of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to
develop a strategic plan to guide Federal programs and activities in
support of advanced manufacturing research and development, a
national strategic plan for advanced manufacturing [13] was
developed by the US NSTC. This strategic plan lays out a robust
innovation policy that would help to close gaps and address the full
lifecycle of technology. It also incorporates intensive engagement
among industry, labor, academia, and government at the national,
state, and regional levels. Partnerships among diverse stakeholders,
varying by location and objective, are a keystone of the strategy.
The strategy seeks to achieve five objectives. On July 17, 2012, the
AMP Steering Committee presented a report to the President,
“Capturing a Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced
Manufacturing” [24]. At the request of President Obama, and using
existing authorities, a pilot manufacturing innovation institute was
established in 2012 with the Department of Defense (DoD) acting as
the lead funding agency. Additional institutes were created in 2014
and 2015 using the lead funding agency authorities and appropri-
ations of the DoD and the Department of Energy (DOE). In
December 2014, Congress passed the Revitalize American
Manufacturing and Innovation [25] (RAMI) Act 8 which instructed
the Secretary of Commerce and the Administration to establish the
Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program, generally called
the NNMI Program. NNMI is the program for coordinating public
and private investments to improve the competitiveness and pro-
ductivity of U.S. manufacturing through the creation of a robust
network of manufacturing innovation institutes, each focused on a
specific and promising advanced manufacturing technology area.
According to the February 2016 NNMI Program Strategic Plan
Report [26], there are nine manufacturing innovation institutes in
various stages of maturation.
2.2. Germany's industrial revitalization policy
The development of a new generation of information and
communication technology gave birth to the mobile Internet, big
data, cloud computing, industrial programmable controllers and
innovative applications, and promoted profound changes in the
manufacturing production and development model. Although
Germany has world-class machinery and equipment and equip-
ment manufacturing industries, and especially is a leader in the
field of embedded systems and automation engineering, German
industry faces some obvious challenges. Müller, Buliga and Voigt
[45] analyze how Industry 4.0 triggers changes in the business
models of manufacturing SMEs (small andedium-sized enterprises)
and high importance of SMEs as SMEs play an essential role in in-
dustrial value creation for Germany. Moreover, global competition
in the field of machinery and equipment is becoming increasingly
fierce, not only is the USA actively revitalizing the manufacturing
sector, Asian machinery and equipment manufacturers are also
catching up, threatening the status of German manufacturers. On
the other hand, software and Internet technology are the relative
weaknesses of German industry. In order to maintain the lead
among world equipment manufacturing suppliers, gain advantages
in the field of embedded systems, and face the challenges of next-
generation technology revolution, Germany put forward their own
INDUSTRIE 4.0 strategy. analyzes how Industry 4.0 triggers SMEs
changes in the business models of manufacturing. Kiel et al. [46]
show that, in order to qualify for sustainable industrial value cre-
ation, the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) requires an extension
of the established Triple Bottom Line (TBL) by three dimensions, i.e.,
technical integration, data and information, and public context.
Moreover, their key findings according to the TBL concept of sus-
tainable value creation, classifies the IIoT related to economic,
ecological, and social implications.
Driven by the German Academy of Engineering, Fraunhofer
Association, Siemens and other academia and industry, the Federal
Ministry of Education and Research and the Federal Ministry of
Economics and Technology included INDUSTRIE 4.0 [2] as one of
the 10 Forward-Looking projects of Education and Research 2020.
Forward-looking projects are the focus of research and innovation
policy and specific objectives will be pursued over a period of a
10e15 year time frame. The INDUSTRIE 4.0 project has been allo-
cated funding of up to EUR 200 million within the High-Tech
Strategy 2020 Action Plan [27], within which 10 projects have
been identified.
The measures to address objectives of the forward-looking
projects have been coordinated among the concerned German
federal government ministries and departments. Stakeholders from
research and industry have been involved in the planning and
design of the projects and specific measures. Intensive cooperation

Table 1
USA President's plan to revitalize american manufacturing.

(1) Enabling innovation C Proposing a national network of American Manufacturing Innovation Institutes and launching a pilot institute
C Increasing investment in advanced manufacturing R&D
(2) Securing the talent pipeline C Creating an $8 billion Community College to Career Fund
C Launching a Military Credentialing and Licensing Task Force to connect our veterans to high-skilled advanced manufacturing jobs
(3) Improving the business C Reforming the tax code to encourage investment in domestic manufacturing
climate C Promoting the safe, responsible development of our natural gas resources
C Leveling the playing field for U.S. workers and firms

Source: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [13].

 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14
and consultation with stakeholders is also a critical factor in the
success of the High-Tech Strategy. Subsequently, the German Me-
chanical Engineering Industry Association (VDMA, Verband
Deutscher Maschinen-und Anlagenbau) set up the platform
INDUSTRIE 4.0. TheTRIE (e.V.VVerband der Elektrotechnik, Elek-
tronik und Informationstechnik), one of Europe's largest technical-
scientific associations and e-published the first German standard-
ization roadmap INDUSTRIE 4.0. According to the final report of the
INDUSTRIE 4.0 working group in 2013 for implementing the stra-
tegic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0 to secure the future of German
manufacturing industry, German INDUSTRIE 4.0 strategy [2] can be
summarized as follows: 1) to build a network, 2) with two major
themes, 3) to achieve three integrations and 4) 8 key areas of
development activities.
The Reference Architectural Model INDUSTRIE 4.0 [28], abbre-
viated RAMI 4.0, consists of a three-dimensional coordinate system
that describes all crucial aspects of INDUSTRIE 4.0. In this way,
complex interrelations can be broken down into smaller and
simpler clusters. German Ministry of Economic Affairs and the
Department of Research are leading the government sector of
INDUSTRIE 4.0, focusing on INDUSTRIE 4.0 standard development.
First, in November 2015, Germany released the second version of
RAMI4.0 standard, which not only became a German Institute for
Standardization standard but also reported to the International
Electrotechnical Committee, actively promoting the establishment
of digital product standards and emphasizing the importance of
execution. Second, a German standardization roadmap INDUSTRIE
4.0 version 2 [29] was developed, and, at the same time, the
INDUSTRIE 4.0 implementation demonstration map was released,
which recorded a total of 202 INDUSTRIE 4.0 - oriented demon-
stration projects.
2.3. China's industrial revitalization policy
Since the end of the 20th century, China's manufacturing in-
dustry has continued to develop rapidly, a complete range of in-
dependent industrial systems have been built, forming a strong
impetus for the industrialization and modernization process.
However, compared with the world's advanced manufacturing
levels, China's manufacturing industry is big but still not strong,
with significant gaps in independent innovation ability, resource
utilization efficiency, industrial structure, and the level, quality and
efficiency of information. The tasks of manufacturing trans-
formation and upgrading and cross-border development are urgent
and arduous. Currently, at a historic intersection of industrial
change in the new round of the technology revolution, China is
accelerating the transformation of economic development,
remodeling the pattern of division of labor for internationalized
industry. China seized this historic opportunity, and laid out four
comprehensive strategic requirements [30]: the implementation of
manufacturing strategy, strengthening of overall planning, forward
deployment, and striving through three decades of effort, such that,
by 2045, China will be built into a leading manufacturing power in
world industry.
On May 8, 2015, China's State Council unveiled its first 10-year
national plan for transforming manufacturing, entitled Made in
China 2025 [4], as the initiation of a series of phases designed to
build China into a leading manufacturing power in the world by
2045. China's development depends on the full implementation of
integration of industrial processes and systems, and a robust
multilayer talent development structure. Measures taken in this
respect will facilitate China's transformation from a manufacturing
giant with a focus on quantity to one with a qualitative edge.
Made in China 2025 is to strive through three-step strategy to
achieve the goal of manufacturing power. The first step is shifting
7
China from being a big manufacturing country to a strong one by
the year 2025. By 2020, the basic realization of industrialization
should further consolidate the position of its manufacturing power,
and a substantial increase in the level of manufacturing informa-
tion technology should be seen. Mastering a number of key areas of
key core technology will further enhance the competitive advan-
tage in several fields, and product quality will greatly improve.
There will also be significant progress in digitization of the
manufacturing industry, making it more networked and intelligent.
Key industries will increase their unit industrial value and signifi-
cantly decrease energy consumption, material consumption and
pollutant emissions. By 2025, the overall quality of the
manufacturing sector should be significantly increased, the inno-
vation capacity significantly enhanced, the full labor productivity
significantly improved, and the integration of industrialization and
informatization will reach a new level. The unit industrial value of
key industries and the energy consumption, material consumption
and pollutant emissions will attain levels of advanced economies in
the world. The formation of a number of strong internationally
competitive multinational companies and industrial clusters will
significantly improve China's position in the global industrial di-
vision and value chain. The second step is China being able to
compete with developed manufacturing powers by 2035. Innova-
tion capacity will significantly increase, major breakthroughs will
be made in key areas of development, overall competitiveness will
markedly enhance, industry will perform a global innovation
leading capacity, and industrialization will be comprehensively
realized. The third step is transforming China into a leading
manufacturing power by the year 2045. The main areas of
manufacturing industry will have innovative leadership and
obvious competitive advantages, having built the world's leading
technology system and industrial system. There are ten key sectors
of new emerging technology in China 2025 transformation.
3. Innovation policy framework in industry 4.0
Narrowly speaking, science and technology emphasizes the use
of innovation to trigger applications at the technical level. Science
and technology policy refers to such as those technology-related
policies described in the previous section for the USA, Germany
and China. Early on, Rothwell and Zegveld [31] argued that tradi-
tional science and technology policies should include patent sys-
tems, technical and vocational education, and the promotion of
basic scientific research and applied research in science and tech-
nology infrastructure. Industrial policy refers to the policy for a
particular industry; it has also been thought to refer to the relevant
national comprehensive measure of overall economic activity
configuration [32]. Combining science and technology policy with
industrial policy, the flow of science and technology to industrial
activities is divided into six stages: basic scientific research, applied
scientific research, applied technology development, technology
practicalization, technology marketization and market activities.
Scholars also point out that science and technology policy can be
used as a driving force to enhance the innovation and development
of a country, and through the structural mechanism and support
system, to continue to support innovation activities [33].
Innovative policy research can be divided into two categories:
one for a single country, to develop innovative policy case study
[34,35], and the other focusing on comparing the input and output
of transnational innovation policy resources [36,37]. Furtado [38]
also pointed out that there are considerable differences in the types
of innovation policies in various countries because of the consid-
erable differences in policy determinants between countries.
Dodgson et al. [32] argues that innovation policy must gradually be
taken seriously from the national innovation system perspective,
8 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14

although research indicates that national differences will affect
patterns of innovation. However, the importance of implementing
coherent policy is beyond doubt. Therefore, based on external ef-
fects, economies of scale, dynamic competition, infant industry
protection and other reasons, government should formulate pol-
icies related to industry to help its smooth development.
Rothwell and Zegveld [31] collectively argue that both the sci-
ence and technology policy and industrial policy are innovation
policies, that government should enhance the welfare of the peo-
ple, not only focus on invention but also facilitate the commer-
cialization of applications, which is the definition of innovation.
Innovation is not only the development of new methods or tech-
nologies, more importantly, the commercialization of the technol-
ogy. Among government policies, science and technology policy is
to assist enterprises engaged in invention activities, and industrial
policy is to assist enterprises to commercialize applications and to
address the risks and difficulties encountered during the process.
As for the concept of innovation policy, Lin [39] pointed out that
according to the industrial policies and experiences of advanced
countries such as the USA, Japan, Germany and France, govern-
ment's policy principles for industrial activities, from laisser-faire to
active interventionism, can be divided into three basic concepts:
favorite environment promotionists, innovation pushers and
structure adjusters.
In the past, more science and technology policies were devel-
oped from the perspective of supply side. The policy frameworks
examined in the studies by Rothwell and Zegveld [31,38]
classified policies on the role of science and technology activities
and divided into 12 policy tools as shown in Table 2, which contains
more demand side and environmental side considerations. To fos-
ter industry, government-adopted policy tools may include envi-
ronmental side, supply side and demand side to comprehensively
adjust the economic, political and regulatory environment or
choose to change the international trade environment. The 12 tools
are consequently summarized into three categories of innovation
policy including supply side (public enterprise, scientific and
technical development, education, and information), demand side
(procurement, public service, commercial, and overseas agents),
and environmental side (political, legal and regulation, taxation,
and financial) policy tools. Supply side policy refers to a series of
government policies on the topics of innovation and human re-
sources, capital, technology, knowledge, information and other
factors, along with the use of various types of policy tools, direct
supply of innovation, guiding and improving the supply of inno-
vative elements, to promote innovation. Environmental side policy
refers to a series of government policies covering the development
of innovative strategies and planning, stimulating innovative
regulation design, which affect scientific and technological inno-
vation activities through innovative environmental factors. De-
mand side policy refers to a series of government policies to reduce
market uncertainty and guide the direction of innovation through
policy design to stimulate innovations in science and technology.
In another study, Rothwell and Zegveld [38] pointed out that the
formation of policy is mainly a combination of policy tools. Policy
tools are divided into financial support, human support and tech-
nical support according to their functional attributes and play the
role of innovation resource supply in the process of technological
innovation and the production process. For example, the govern-
ment's technical research contracts and public procurement pol-
icies impact business innovation and marketing is a policy tool to
create market demand. In addition, the development of science and
technology infrastructure, as well as various incentive measures,
decrees and norms, can encourage academia and the business
community to carry out research and development, technology
introduction and other activities. These are innovative environ-
mental policy tools. This framework has been widely used in policy
analysis [40e43]. Economists point out that successful innovation
is a good combination of both technology supply and market de-
mand. In terms of science and technology research and develop-
ment, on the supply side, the new product development process
depends on the following three factors in the appropriate degree of
investment: science and technology knowledge and human re-
sources, the necessary management of innovative market infor-
mation techniques to ensure successful development, production
and marketing, and third, the financial resources. Fig. 2 shows how
government policies affect industry innovation. From the point of

Table 2
Government policy instruments for industrial innovation.

Policy tools Examples

Supply Side (1) Public enterprise Innovation by state-owned enterprises and institutions, focusing on developing new industries, pioneering in the use of new
technology, joint developments with private enterprises
(2) Scientific and technical Engagement in scientific and technical research, support for research institutes; developing learning society, professional
development organizations; offering research grants in support of industrial innovation
(3) Education Government support for education and training at all levels, including general education, higher education at university and
post-graduate levels, vocational education, apprenticeship programs, and continual education
(4) Information service Government support in developing information networks of business intelligence for private enterprises, business centers,
libraries, advisory and consultancy services, cloud databases, and liaison services
Environmental (5) Financial Government support and subsidy for industrial innovation for specific projects, joint financial investments, provision of
Side equipment loans, arranging third-party financing, loan guarantees and IPO assistance, and export credits
(6) Taxation Tax exemption and reductions for industrial innovation for specific projects, R&D tax credits, capital gain tax exemption,
personal tax allowances
(7) Legal regulatory Patents and intellectual property management, regulatory agendas for environmental and health control, accreditation and
certification management, anti-trust regulations and social justice supervision, awards and prices, and developing protocol
standards
(8) Political Strategic planning of national innovation programs, regional development policies, awards and prizes for innovation,
support of merger and acquisition, and think-tank and public consulting for policy exploitation, political and legal system for
investment
Demand Side (9) Procurement Central or local government purchases and contracts, R&D contracts, and technology transactions via government
procurement
(10) Public services Infrastructural and institutional developments in science park development, facilitating market transactions, banking
service, maintenance and management of innovation diversity and applications, provision of health insurance and services,
transportation, and telecommunication, social transformation
(11) Commercial Trade agreements, tariffs, currency regulations, commercialization, industrialization of innovation
(12) Overseas agent Overseas representation for international trade and transactions, developing official organizations in support of
internationalization of innovation

Source: Rothwell and Zegveld [31].

 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14
Fig. 2. Policy targets and tools for promoting innovation.
Source: Rothwell and Zegveld [31].
view of the supply side, the government itself can meet the needs of
new product innovation by directly participating in the scientific
and technological process, by improving the above three elements
or indirectly adjusting the economic, political and regulatory
environment. From the perspective of demand side, the govern-
ment can also influence the innovation process through the de-
mand side policy. The government can improve the demand
conditions by changing the domestic market directly or indirectly,
or choosing to change the international trade environment, such as
through tariffs, trade agreements, or the establishment of national
merchandise overseas sales agencies, etc.
4. Data survey and pattern matching
In this study, innovation policies regarding Industry 4.0 in China,
Germany and the USA are investigated using qualitative content
analysis and descriptive statistics methods. The main role of con-
tent analysis is to systematically render a picture of policy tools
used for Industry 4.0. Such data sets may not be statistically
representative, but they can help in gaining a better understanding
of the innovation policies of Industry 4.0. Descriptive statistics are
mainly used for quantitative interpretation to describe the main
features of innovation policy.
In this study, pattern matching is used to fit the Industry 4.0
policies of China, Germany and the USA into the innovative policy
framework of Rothwell and Zegveld [31]. Table 2 uses the example
guidelines, that is, the actual policy measures under the three
categories to determine how each policy tool should match the
innovation policy. As shown in Table 2, the innovation policies
affect the supply side, the environmental side, and the demand
side. This study has a limitation by assuming that all policy tools are
given the same weight when matching innovation policies, even if
they are unlikely to have the same impact on industrial develop-
ment. This assumption is mainly based on two considerations: First,
there is no precedent for quantitative research about transnational
9
and trans-regional Industry 4.0 policy. If the policies are given
different weights, it might result in future research deviation.
Second, as national conditions of different countries' or regions’
resource constraints, political structures and other items are
different, the weight of each policy tool will be different. Based on
this, it is safe and appropriate to give each policy the same weight.
This study uses a qualitative analysis method first on a theo-
retical model of research methods, to induce the results of other
theories and initially establish the overall architecture of the
pattern. Then, qualitative analysis is used to explain the concept of
the theoretical model of this study, and makes use of the research
results to conduct an empirical analysis.
5. Innovation policy analysis
The policy taxonomy of Rothwell and Zegveld [31] is used to
analyze the policy of the revitalization of industry via Industry 4.0
among China, Germany and the USA, as shown in Table 2, which is
based on the policies implemented in these three countries. Policy
is selected from the texts of Made in China 2025 [4], INDUSTRIE 4.0
[2] and Advanced Manufacturing Partner program [3,13]. These
policies are promulgated by the highest administrative agencies in
those nations and are committed to promoting the transformation
and upgrading of manufacturing. Moreover, there are many simi-
larities in their development of key industries; thus the cross-
national analysis can be better. When dividing the policy tools,
each policy tool is given the same weight.
5.1. Innovation policy in the USA
The policy classification of Advanced Manufacturing Partner
program [3,13] in this study shows the USA government has applied
a total of 105 innovation policy tools. Preliminary classification
results are shown in Table 3.
10 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14

Table 3
Advanced Manufacturing Partner policies in the USA.

Policy tools Policy Q'ty %

Supply Side (1) Public enterprise 0 0

(2) Scientific and technical Advanced Materials (1); 1 1%
development
(3) Education Changing Manufacturing Workforce (3); 14 14%
Better Training for Today's Advanced Manufacturing Workers (1); Education and Training for
Tomorrow's Workers (5);
Educating the Next Generation (5)
(4) Information service Product Technology Platforms (1); Advanced Manufacturing Processes (1); Data and Design 4 4%
Infrastructure (1); Cross-Cutting Agency Investments (1)
Environmental (5) Financial Private-Public Co-Investment (1); Early Procurement (1); 3 3%
Side Advanced Manufacturing for National Security (1)
(6) Taxation R&E Tax Credit (1) 1 1%
(7) Legal regulatory Coordinating Federal Investment (5); 7 7%
Raising National Investment in Advanced Manufacturing R&D (2)
(8) Political Principles and Objectives of the National Strategy (4); 26 25%
Accelerating Investment by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (4); Strengthening Workforce
Skills (5); Creating Partnerships (3); Coordinating Federal Investments (7);
Raising National Investment in Advanced Manufacturing R&D (3)
Demand Side (9) Procurement Early Procurement (1); 1 1%
(10) Public services Accelerating Investment by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (4); Strengthening Workforce 43 41%
Skills (14); Creating Partnerships (6); Coordinating Federal Investments (11);
Raising National Investment in Advanced Manufacturing R&D (8)
(11) Commercial Advanced Materials (1); Production Technology Platforms (1); 4 3%
Advanced Manufacturing Processes (1); Data and Design Infrastructure (1)
(12) Overseas agent 0 0

Source: Organized from this research.

5.2. Innovation policy in Germany
The policy classification in this study of INDUSTRIE 4.0 [2] il-
lustrates that the German government has applied a total of 91
innovation policy tools. Preliminary classification results are shown
in Table 4.
5.3. Innovation policy in China
The policy classification of Made in China 2025 [4] in this study
shows that the Chinese government has applied a total of 105
innovation policy tools. Preliminary classification results are shown
in Table 5.
5.4. Cross-national comparative analysis
In this study, we present three comparative analyses within
USA, Germany and China, as shown in Tables 3e5, respectively. The
first cross-national analysis is regarding innovation policy com-
parison (Table 6), which compares the emphasis on aspect of
innovation policy among the USA, Germany and China, and lists all
policies with their associated percentages. In this cross-national
comparison, all policy tools are given equal weight, although they
probably do not all have an equal impact on Industry 4.0 innovation
policy development in the USA, Germany and China. This
assumption is used to develop this cross-national policy analysis
and should be considered as a research limitation, as noted above.
The second analysis mainly compares the weights of individual
innovation policies (Table 7).
6. Findings and discussion
In Table 6, the cross-national innovation policy comparison re-
sults show that the AMP innovative policy tools of the USA
comprise more demand side policy (45%) than environmental side
policy (36%), both of which overshadow supply side policy (19%). In
Germany's INDUSTRIE 4.0 innovative policy tools, the demand side
policy (41%) accounts for more than the environmental side policy
(34%), and both exceed the supply-side policy (25%). And innova-
tive policy tools in Made in China 2025 major on environmental
side policy (71%) far more than demand-side policy (20%) or supply
side policy (9%). Moreover, in Table 7, the percentage of innovation
policy results show that the major policies in the USA focus on
public services, political and education aspects. Public services
(41%) get more attention than political policies (25%), which ac-
count for nearly double the number of education policies (14%).
Meanwhile, the distribution ratio of INDUSTRIE 4.0 policies for
Germany where it can be seen that major policies focus on public
services, scientific and technical development, political, and legal
and regulatory aspects. There are more public services policies
(29%) than scientific and technical development (21%) and political
(21%), all of which account for more than legal and regulatory
policies (12%). And the distribution ratio of Made in China 2025
policies shows that major policies focus on political, legal and
regulatory, and public services aspects. Political policies (50%)
exceed legal and regulatory policies (19%), as well as public services
policies (15%).
This study classified the policies of Industry 4.0 using 12 policy
tools based on the policies implemented in China, Germany and the
USA, and comprehensive theoretical analysis and empirical analysis
results are presented. Our study collected Industry 4.0 policy tools
from China, Germany and the USA, and conducted a cross-national
analysis that shows distribution across the 12 policy tools are not
exactly the same. Beier et al. [47] indicate that the digitalization of
industry provides a window of opportunity for the ecological
dimension of sustainability. However this transformation of in-
dustrial revitalization will not only impact the ecological dimension
of resource efficiency and renewable energy, but also likely to be
accompanied by social transformations. As discussed, the ratio of
the top three tools is demand side-public services, the environ-
mental side-political, and the supply side - education in the USA,.
While in Germany, the top three ratio is the demand side-public
services, the supply side-scientific and technical development,
and environmental side-political. And in China, the top three ratio
is the environmental side-political and legal and regulatory, and
the demand side-public services. This result suggests that political
 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14 11

Table 4
INDUSTRIE 4.0 policies in Germany.

Policy tools Policy Q'ty %

Supply Side (1) Public enterprise 0 0

(2) Scientific and technical Market leadership in machinery and plant manufacturing (1); 19 21%
development A globally significant cluster of IT competencies (1);
A leading innovator in embedded systems and automation engineering (1); Outstanding research
and training facilities (1);
Horizontal integration through value networks (1);
End-to-end digital integration of engineering across the entire value chain (1); Vertical integration
and networked manufacturing systems (1);
What the future looks like under INDUSTRIE 4.0 (5); Novel service-based, real-time enabled CPS
platforms (6); CPS technology (1)
(3) Education A highly-skilled and highly-motivated workforce (1); Outstanding research and training facilities 4 4%
(1); Work organization and work design in the digital industrial age (1); Training and continuing
professional development for INDUSTRIE 4.0 (1)
(4) Information service 0 0
Environmental (5) Financial Resource efficiency (1); 1 1%
Side (6) Taxation 0 0
(7) Legal regulatory Standardization and open standards for a reference architecture (4); Managing complex systems (1); 11 12%
Safety and security as critical factors for the success of INDUSTRIE 4.0 (2); Regulatory framework (4)
(8) Political Market leadership in machinery and plant manufacturing (1); A globally significant cluster of IT 19 21%
competencies (1); A leading innovator in embedded systems and automation engineering (1);
A highly-skilled and highly-motivated workforce (1);
Outstanding research and training facilities (1);
Horizontal integration through value networks (1); End-to-end digital integration of engineering
across the entire value chain (1);
Vertical integration and networked manufacturing systems (1); future look like under INDUSTRIE
4.0 (5); Leading supplier strategy (3); Leading market strategy (1); New social infrastructures in the
workplace (1); CPS technology (1)
Demand Side (9) Procurement Leading supplier strategy (3); Leading market strategy (1); 4 4%
(10) Public services Proximity to and in some cases close cooperation between suppliers and users (1); A leading 26 29%
innovator in embedded systems and automation engineering (1); Outstanding research and training
facilities (1); Horizontal integration through value networks (1); End-to-end digital integration of
engineering across the entire value chain (1); Vertical integration and networked manufacturing
systems (1); New level of sociotechnical interaction (1); Novel business opportunities and models
(1);
Novel service-based, real-time enabled CPS platforms (6); future look like under INDUSTRIE 4.0 (5);
CPS technology (1); Enabling a smooth transition to INDUSTRIE 4.0 for businesses (5);
Delivering a comprehensive broadband infrastructure for industry (1)
(11) Commercial Novel service-based, real-time enabled CPS platforms (6); 7 8%
CPS technology (1);
(12) Overseas agent 0 0

Source: Organized from this research.

policy of environmental side is the key policy tools which appears
in the top three for industrial revitalization via Industry 4.0 in all
three countries.
The results also illustrate that the demand side policy of public
services and environmental side policy of political account for more
than 50% of the overall ratio of policy tools for developing Industry
4.0 for the USA (65%), Germany (50%) and China (65%). We refer
back to the definition proposed by Rothwell and Zegveld [31] and
their causal process of policy tools presented in Fig. 2. These tools of
public service and political policies can enhance domestic markets
and then R&D activities in the sector during development of in-
dustry innovation. In the USA, the supply side policy tool of edu-
cation ranks third in the distribution ratio of Advanced
Manufacturing Partner program, and it can be inferred that tools of
education will enhance not only technical knowledge and
manpower but also market information and management skills in
the sector, thereby improving R&D activities during development
of industry innovation.
China uses a high ratio of political and legal regulatory policy
tools for developing the Industry 4.0 in Made in Chia 2025, and it
can be seen that these tools will enhance both domestic markets
and R&D activities in the sector during development of industry
innovation. Li [49] has analyzed the data from the World Bank and
China's National Bureau of Statistics, and finds an upward trajectory
in China in manufacturing capability development, research and
development commitment, and human capital investment. How-
ever, implementing an ambitiousstrategic plan such as Made in
China 2025 is coupled with challenges. In Germany, the supply side
policy tool of scientific and technical development ranks second in
the distribution ratio of Industrie 4.0, and shows that the tools of
scientific and technical development will enhance technical
knowledge and manpower in the sector, thereby improving R&D
activities during development of industry innovation. Müller and
Voigt [48] reveal that Chinese SMEs expect a larger impact through
Made in China 2025 than German SMEs through INDUSTRIE 4.0.
Furthermore, they recommend German SMEs to consider the po-
tentials of improving their competitive position and individualizing
products to customers' demands, and address China two chal-
lenges: decreasing number of jobs in manufacturing SMEs as well
as skills shortages expected through introducing Made in China
2025.
7. Practical implications and limitations
In practice, this study solves the problem of how to design an
innovation policy for developing Industry 4.0 industry. This cross-
national study offers useful guidelines for designing policy port-
folios in developing and developed countries. For developing
economies, it is critical to develop policy guiding the direction of
revitalization of industry development using demand-side policy
12 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14

Table 5
Made in China 2025 policies in China.

Policy tools Policy Q'ty %

Supply Side (1) Public enterprise 0 0

(2) Scientific and technical Improve national manufacturing innovation capability (1); 2 2%
development Strengthening the industrial base capacity (1)
(3) Education Improve multi-level personnel training system (6) 6 5%
(4) Information service Improve multi-level personnel training system (1) 1 1%
Environmental (5) Financial Improve the financial support policies (1) 1 0
Side (6) Taxation Increase the support of fiscal and taxation policies (1) 1 0
(7) Legal regulatory Improve national manufacturing innovation capability (2); 20 19%
Enhance the quality brand building (4);
Further promote the restructuring of the manufacturing sector (1);
Deepen the reform of institutional mechanisms (2);
Create a fair competitive market environment (8);
Improve multi-level training system (1);
Further expand the opening-up of manufacturing (2)
(8) Political Improve national manufacturing innovation capability (1); 53 50%
Promote the depth of integration of informatization and industrialization (4); Strengthen the
industrial base capability (2);
Enhance the quality brand building (2);
Full implementation of green manufacturing (1);
Vigorously promote breakthrough developments in key areas (10);
Further promote the restructuring of the manufacturing sector (3);
Actively develop service-oriented manufacturing and producer services (1); Improve the level of
development of manufacturing (3);
Deepen the reform of institutional mechanisms (4);
Improve the financial support policies (6); Increase the support of fiscal and taxation policies (4); I
mprove multi-level personnel training system (1);
Further expand the opening-up of manufacturing (1); Improve the organization and
implementation mechanism (10)
Demand Side (9) Procurement Improve the financial support policies (1) 1 1%
(10) Public services Improve national manufacturing innovation capability (1); 16 15%
Promote the depth of integration of informatization and industrialization (1);
Actively develop service-oriented manufacturing and producer services (2); Deepen the reform of
institutional mechanisms (2);
Improve the financial support policies (3);
Increase the support of fiscal and taxation policies (2);
Improve multi-level personnel training system (1);
Improve the small and medium micro-enterprise policy (2);
Further expand the opening-up of manufacturing (1);
(11) Commercial Improve national manufacturing innovation capability (1); 2 2%
Enhance the brand building in quality (1)
(12) Overseas agent Further expand the opening-up of manufacturing (2) 2 2%

Source: Organized from this research.

Table 6
Cross-national innovation policy comparison among the USA, Germany and China.

Policy tools USA Germany China

Q'ty % Q'ty % Q'ty %

Supply Side (1) Public enterprise 0 0 0 0 0 0

(2) Scientific and technical development 1 1% 19 21% 2 2%
(3) Education 14 14% 4 4% 6 6%
(4) Information service 4 4% 0 0 1 1%
Sub-total 19 19% 23 25% 9 9%

Environmental Side (5) Financial 3 3% 1 1% 1 1%

(6) Taxation 1 1% 0 0 1 1%
(7) Legal regulatory 7 7% 11 12% 20 19%
(8) Political 26 25% 19 21% 53 50%
Sub-total 37 36% 31 34% 75 71%

Demand Side (9) Procurement 1 1% 4 4% 1 1%

(10) Public services 43 41% 26 29% 16 15%
(11) Commercial 4 3% 7 8% 2 2%
(12) Overseas agent 0 0 0 0 2 2%
Sub-total 48 45% 37 41% 21 20%

Total 104 100% 91 100% 105 100%

Source: Organized from this research.

 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14 13

Table 7
The percentage of each innovation policy compared among the USA, Germany and China.

The weight rank of policy tools

USA Rank Germany Rank China Rank

Public services 1 41% Public services 1 29% Political 1 50%

Political 2 25% Scientific and technical development 2 21% Legal regulatory 2 19%
Education 3 14% Political 2 21% Public services 3 15%
Legal regulatory 4 7% Legal regulatory 4 12% Education 4 6%
Information service 5 4% Commercial 5 8% Overseas agent 5 2%
Commercial 6 3% Education 6 4% Scientific and technical development 5 2%
Financial 7 3% Procurement 6 4% Commercial 5 2%
Taxation 8 1% Financial 8 1% Information service 8 1%
Procurement 8 1% Taxation 9 0 Procurement 8 1%
Scientific and technical development 8 1% Information service 9 0 Financial 8 1%
Public enterprise 11 0 Public enterprise 9 0 Taxation 8 1%
Overseas agent 11 0 Overseas agent 9 0 Public enterprise 12 0

Source: Organized from this research.

because private enterprises do not have the advanced technology
support to create innovative manufacturing systems needed for
Industry 4.0. Conversely, environmental side policy might be
strongly emphasized in developed economies where the Industry
4.0 infrastructure should be well established and the government
needs to guide the development of key technology and manpower
training. This result offers practical implications for Industry 4.0
development in different national contexts for revitalization of
industry development. It is worth noting that selected cases, the
USA, Germany and China, are large countries with abundant re-
sources and very large manufacturing demand within the domestic
market. These cross-national findings will have limited application
to small countries or new industrialized economies with an export-
oriented policy direction.
The method of content analyses adopted in this paper is the
qualitative method for management research most often used to
gain an in-depth picture of industrial revitalization policies via
Industry 4.0. Such datasets are not statistically representative but
provide a rich understanding of the types of industrial revitaliza-
tion policies that are mainly employed for industrial revitalization
development. However, this study faces several limitations. First,
there are many policy tools in these leading countries, not all of
them have been adequately analyzed. The main weakness of this
study is the absence of precise indicators and quantitative data
regarding the magnitude of the effects caused by the application of
innovation industrial revitalization policies to Industry 4.0 tech-
nology. Furthermore, all policy tools are given equal weight in this
cross-national analysis even though it is likely that they do not all
have equal impact on industrial revitalization development among
the USA, Germany and China. This is also a research limitation
because the development of industrial revitalization via Industry
4.0 in each country is insufficient to understand the effect of policy
technology building at this stage. This issue is recommended for
future cross-national study after the weighting impact of each
policy tool can be clarified with respect to the development of in-
dustrial revitalization.
Due to this limitation, the findings of this study may not easily
be generalized to all industrial sectors and may be subject to other
interpretations [44]. The quality of the research also depends on the
individual skills of the researcher and is easily influenced by the
researcher's personal biases and idiosyncrasies. These limitations
will raise new starting points for the future study of industrial
revitalization policies via Industry 4.0.
8. Conclusions
This research provides a theoretical analysis of innovation policy
but adopts a rather pragmatic approach. It describes in detail a
number of innovation policies currently being pursued in the In-
dustry 4.0 initiatives and contributes to Industry 4.0 policy research
by applying an innovation policy framework to explore policy dy-
namics in the USA, Germany and China. The results reveal that
national preferences for innovation policy differ in ways that are
linked with the state of the manufacturing industry in those
economies. Results suggest that the policy orientation of the USA
tends to favor demand-side policy, public services, political, and
education and training policies, while policy preferences in Ger-
many tend to favor demand-side policy, public services, scientific
and technical development and political policies, while for China, it
is environmental-side policy, political, legal and regulatory, and
public service policies. Based on this finding, policymakers in In-
dustry 4.0 can enhance the implementation, outcomes and quality
of their initiatives. Planning based on innovation policy of Industry
4.0 should consider the temporal dynamics of such policies and
attempt to mitigate disadvantages at each stage. By integrating this
perspective into revitalization of Industry 4.0 policy planning, both
the necessary resources and the potential outcomes can be
optimized.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2018.12.001.
References
[1] UNIDO, Emerging Trends in Global Manufacturing Industries, 2013. https://
www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2013-07/Emerging_Trends_UNIDO_2013_
0.PDF. (Accessed 2 June 2013).
[2] The Industrie 4.0 Working Group, Securing the Future of German Manufacturing
Industry: Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUS-
TRIE 4.0, 2013. https://www.acatech.de/Publikation/recommendations-for-
implementing-the-strategic-initiative-industrie-4-0-final-report-of-the-indus-
trie-4-0-working-group/. (Accessed 8 April 2013).
[3] President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the
President on Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing,
2011. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/
ostp/pcast-advanced-manufacturing-june2011.pdf. (Accessed 24 June 2011).
[4] National Manufacturing Strategy Advisory Committee, Made in China 2025,
Key Technology Roadmap, 2015 Edition, 2015. http://www.cae.cn/cae/html/
files/2015-10/29/20151029105822561730637.pdf. (Accessed 29 September
2015).
[5] The Boston Consulting Group, The Shifting Economics of Global
Manufacturing: How Cost Competitiveness Is Changing Worldwide, 2014.
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/lean_manufacturing_
globalization_shifting_economics_global_manufacturing/. (Accessed 19
August 2014).
[6] J.Z. Shyu, Y.C. Chiu, Innovation policy for developing Taiwan's competitive
advantages, R D Manag. 32 (4) (2002) 369e374. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9310.00267.
14 C.-C. Kuo et al. / Global Transitions 1 (2019) 3e14
[7] Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage:Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance, Free Press, N.Y., 1990.
[8] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Managing Na-
tional Innovation Systems, 1999. http://echo.iat.sfu.ca/library/oecd99_
managing_National_IS.pdf.
[9] J.S. Grawe, H. Chen, J.P. Daugherty, The relationship between strategic
orientation, service innovation, and performance, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 39 (2009) 282e300. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030910962249.
[10] Jay Lee, Behrad Bagheri, Hung-An Kao, A cyber-physical systems architecture
for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems, Manuf. Lett. 3 (2015) 18e23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001.
[11] Yu-Jun Lin, The international manufacturing policy under the wave of in-
dustry 4.0, Econ. Outlook Bimon. 162 (2015) 65e72. http://www.airitilibrary.
com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID¼10190376-201511-201512210014-
201512210014-65-72.
[12] Hu Yun-Hsiang, Impact Analysis of industry 4.0 on Notebook Original
Equipment Manufacturing, Master's Thesis, Executive Master of Business
Administration, National Chung Hsing University, 2015. https://hdl.handle.
net/11296/7abt58.
[13] President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, A National Stra-
tegic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing, 2012. https://www.energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/2013/11/f4/nstc_feb2012.pdf. (Accessed 15 February 2012).
[14] UK Research and Innovation, High-value Manufacturing Strategy 2012-15,
2012. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/362294/High_Value_Manufacturing_Strategy_
2012-15.pdf. (Accessed 10 July 2012).
[15] The Abe administration Japan, Japan revitalization strategy. https://www.
kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/en_saikou_jpn_hon.pdf, 2013. (Accessed
14 June 2013).
[16] Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Strategy for Innovation in
Manufacturing Industry 3.0, 2014. http://english.motie.go.kr/en/tp/alltopics/
bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_cd_n¼3&bbs_seq_n¼7. (Accessed 26 June 2014).
[17] Executive Yuan’s Office of Science and Technology, Taiwan Productivity 4.0
Initiative, 2015. http://archives.ey.gov.tw/Upload/WebArchive/01ey/20160110/
www.ey.gov.tw/News_Contentd725.html. (Accessed 17 September 2015).
[18] Virtual Engineering Community (VEC), Industrial 4.1J, 2015. https://cloud.
watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/691812.html. (Accessed 9 March 2015).
[19] Yi-Hui Wang, The challenge of Taiwan productivity 4.0 from Industry 4.0,
Taiwan Econ. Res. Mon. 38 (8) (2015) 111e119. http://www.airitilibrary.com/
Publication/alPublicationJournal?PublicationID¼10238867.
[20] President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the
President Accelerating u.S. Advanced Manufacturing, 2014. https://www.
manufacturingusa.com/sites/prod/files/amp20_report_final.pdf. (Accessed 3
October 2014).
[21] Manufacturing Operations Management, A Fourth Industrial Revolution, 2015.
http://www.manufacturing-operations-management.com/manufacturing/
2015/07/you-say-you-want-a-fourth-industrial-revolution-industrie-4.html.
(Accessed July 2015).
[22] World Economic Forum, The Future of Manufacturing: Opportunities to Drive
Economic Growth, 2012. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_MOB_Future
Manufacturing_Report_2012.pdf.
[23] Office of Science and Technology Policy, America Competes Reauthorization
Act of 2010, 2010. https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-
111publ358.pdf. (Accessed 4 January 2011).
[24] President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Capturing a Do-
mestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing, 2012. https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_
amp_steering_committee_report_final_july_17_2012.pdf. (Accessed 17 July
2012).
[25] Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, Revitalize American
Manufacturing and Innovation, 2014. https://www.manufacturingusa.com/
resources/revitalize-american-manufacturing-and-innovation-act. (Accessed
16 December 2014).
[26] National Science and Technology Council Advanced Manufacturing National
Program Office, National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI)
Program Strategic Plan, 2016. https://www.manufacturingusa.com/resources/
national-network-manufacturing-innovation-nnmi-program-strategic-plan.
(Accessed 15 February 2016).
[27] Division of Innovation Policy Issues, The New High Tech Strategy Innovations
for Germany, 2014. https://www.hightech-strategie.de/de/The-new-High-
Tech-Strategy-390.php.
[28] RAMI 4.0, The Reference Architectural Model Industrie 4.0, ZVEI, 2015. https://
www.zvei.org/en/press-media/publications/gma-status-report-reference-
archtitecture-model-industrie-40-rami-40/.
[29] DIN/DKE e Roadmap, German Standardization Roadmap Industry 4.0 Version 2,
2016. https://sci40.com/files/assets_sci40.com/pdf/german-standardization-
roadmap-industry-4-0-version-2-data.pdf. (Accessed January 2016).
[30] C. Wenjian, A summary on the current "four comprehensive" strategic layout,
J. Party Sch. Shengli Oilfield 4 (2015) 12e16. https://doi.org/10.13600/j.cnki.
jpsslof.issn.1009-4326.2015.04.003.
[31] R. Rothwell, W. Zegveld, Industrial Innovation and Public Policy: Preparing for
the 1980s and the 1990s, Pinter Publishers, London, 1981.
[32] M. Dodgson, A. Hughes, J. Foster, S. Metcalfe, Systems thinking, market failure,
and the development of innovation policy: the case of Australia, Res. Pol. 40
(2011) 1145e1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.015.
[33] M. Dodgson, J. Mathews, T. Kastelle, M.-C. Hu, The evolving nature of Taiwan's
national innovation system: the case of biotechnology innovation networks,
Res. Pol. 37 (2008) 430e445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.005.
[34] R.R. Nelson, Capitalism as an engine of progress, Res. Pol. 19 (1990) 193e214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(90)90036-6.
[35] J.Z. Shyu, Y.C. Chiu, Innovation policy for developing Taiwan's competitive
advantages, R D Manag. 32 (2002) 369e374. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9310.00267.
[36] H. Ergas, Economic Policy and Technological Performance, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, New York, 1987.
[37] H. Etzkowitz, M. Gulbrandsen, Public entrepreneur: the trajectory of United
States science, technology and industrial policy, Sci. Publ. Pol. 26 (1999)
53e62. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782590.
[38] R. Rothwell, W. Zegveld, An assessment of government innovation policies,
Rev. Pol. Res. 3 (1984) 436e444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1984.
tb00138.x.
[39] Jianshan Lin, Industrial Policy and Industrial Management, Global Economic
Society, Taipei, 1995.
[40] C.-Y. Huang, J.Z. Shyu, G.-H. Tzeng, Reconfiguring the innovation policy
portfolios for Taiwan's SIP Mall industry, Technovation 27 (2007) 744e765.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.04.002.
[41] C. Arup, Innovation, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press UK, 2009.
[42] C.-C. Lin, C.-H. Yang, J.Z. Shyu, A comparison of innovation policy in the smart
grid industry across the pacific: China and the USA, Energy Policy 57 (2013)
119e132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.028.
[43] J.S. Caerteling, C.A. Di Benedetto, A.G. Dore e, J.I. Halman, M. Song, RETRACTED:
technology development projects in road infrastructure: the relevance of
government championing behavior, Technovation 31 (2011) 270e283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.02.001.
[44] J.W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, third ed., Sage Publications, Los Angels, CA, 2009.
[45] J.M. Müller, O. Buliga, K.I. Voigt, Fortune favors the prepared: how SMEs
approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 132 (2018) 2e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019.
[46] D. Kiel, J.M. Müller, C. Arnold, K.I. Voigt, Sustainable industrial value creation:
benefits and challenges of industry 4.0, Int. J. Innov. Manag. 21 (08) (2017)
1740015. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617400151.
[47] G. Beier, S. Niehoff, T. Ziems, B. Xue, Sustainability aspects of a digitalized
industry-A comparative study from China and Germany, Int. J. Precision Eng.
Manuf.-Green Technol. 4 (2) (2017) 227e234. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40684-017-0028-8.
[48] J.M. Müller, K.I. Voigt, Sustainable industrial value creation in SMEs: a com-
parison between industry 4.0 and made in China 2025, Int. J. Precision Eng.
Manuf.-Green Technol. 5 (5) (2018) 659e670. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40684-018-0056-z.
[49] Ling Li, China's manufacturing locus in 2025: with a comparison of “Made-in-
China 2025” and “Industry 4.0”, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 135 (2018)
66e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.028.