Development of Innovation Studies in Korea From The Perspective of The National Innovation System PDF

sustainability
Article
Development of Innovation Studies in Korea from the
Perspective of the National Innovation System
HyounJeong Oh 1 and Chan-Goo Yi 2, *
1 Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Daejeon 34129, Korea; hjoh77@etri.re.kr
2 Department of Public Administration, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
* Correspondence: changoo@cnu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-042-821-5849
Abstract: The objective of this study is to explore how extant studies on innovation have contributed
to the distribution of knowledge required for improving the national innovation system (NIS) in
Korea. Korea was chosen as the context for this study because it is one of the leading countries that
has succeeded in establishing an NIS. Using a systematic review method, we selected 739 articles
published in two representative innovation journals in Korea, and analyzed the critical topics of these
articles from the perspective of NIS studies. Overall, we found that these studies helped establish
a knowledge base necessary for developing the NIS in Korea. Results showed that, over time, the
scope of the studies shifted attention from building the NIS to implementing it. As a subsystem
of the NIS, the industrial fields that sectoral innovation systems (SIS) were interested in were also
changing in line with Korea’s economic growth over time. This study contributes to innovation
studies by offering a comprehensive picture of findings on NIS studies in the innovation literature in
Korea, and providing a theoretical framework that organizes the literature. This study expands our
understanding of the NIS, which has been recognized as an effective tool to compare and measure

innovative performance and economic achievements.

Citation: Oh, H.; Yi, C.-G. Keywords: innovation studies; national innovation systems; research trends; Korean journals; knowl-
Development of Innovation Studies edge distribution
in Korea from the Perspective of the
National Innovation System.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1752.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031752 1. Introduction
Academic Editors: The objective of this study is to explore whether extant studies of innovation have
Yeong-wha Sawng, Min-Kyu Lee, provided the knowledge required for improving the national innovation system (NIS)
Suchul Lee and Minseo Kim in Korea.
Received: 7 January 2022
The topic of an NIS is a relatively new concept, introduced by Freeman in 1982 [1]. It
Accepted: 29 January 2022
was further developed by Lundvall [2], who analyzed different dimensions of innovation
Published: 3 February 2022
systems, and Nelson and Rosenberg [3], who conducted case studies by country [4] (p. 750).
In the early 1990s, the OECD adopted the concept of an NIS as a tool to understand why
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
there were differences in innovation and economic performance across countries, and it
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
has since become widespread. Today, many countries establish and implement innovation
published maps and institutional affil-
policies based on this tool [5] (p. 3). Many researchers consider it important that the role
iations.
of government include establishing innovation systems, and coordinating the activities of
various innovation actors at the national level in order to enhance innovative performance.
Initiated by Kim in 1993 [6], study of NISs has been steadily growing in Korea as well.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
One of the fastest-growing academic disciplines today is innovation studies (IS). The
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. concept of innovation, which is the vital force driving economic development, was first
This article is an open access article set forth by Joseph Schumpeter in his book Theorie der wirtschafchaftlichen Entwicklung,
distributed under the terms and published in 1911 [7] (p. 2), [8] (p. 183). From there on, an increasing number of studies on
conditions of the Creative Commons technological innovation as a critical driver of economic development were conducted by
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// neo-Schumpeterian economists such as Dosi [9], Freeman [10], Rosenberg [11], Nelson and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Winter [12,13], Clark [14], and Dosi et al. [15]. Since then, academic interest in innovation
4.0/). has increased in earnest [8] (p. 184).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031752 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1752 2 of 24
It seems, however, that there is not much effort in academia to further develop IS
into an independent academic field. Even Fagerberg and Verspagen [7], Martin [16], and
Fagerberg et al. [17,18], who are well-known scholars in this field, did not discuss in
depth the definition, research scope, major theories, and research methods of IS. They
instead traced the emergence of IS and addressed its future challenges. In the case of
Korea, IS has been continually developing since academic journals on the topic were first
established in the 1990s. Still, it is only relatively recently that IS trends in Korea have been
researched [19–22].
There is a close link between an NIS and IS. Since NISs arose from great interest in
IS, NISs are a field of IS. On the other hand, an NIS encompasses the entirety of IS at the
national level [23]. It is imperative to research IS in order to enhance an NIS. IS conducts
a comprehensive study of the entire innovation process, including innovative activities
of individual actors, types of interactions among actors, and outcomes and diffusion of
innovation [24,25]. In doing so, IS provides the theoretical bases for NISs.
Existing review papers have rarely discussed the topic of NISs. Although some studies
have reviewed IS, they did not adopt an NIS perspective [19–22]. The few overseas studies
that examined IS have also not evaluated from an NIS perspective, nor did they specifically
focus on developing countries [7,16–18]. Conversely, another previous study did not review
NISs but just evaluated the performance of each country’s NIS [26–29]. In addition, some
of those studies did not use the systematic review method, and the rationale for setting the
analytical categories was unclear.
The objective of this study is to review IS research that explores the NIS in Korea. We
will analyze the relationship between IS and the development of the NIS to propose the
direction for IS in Korea. This study adopts a systematic literature review method and
content analysis of the research published in two major academic journals in the field of
IS in Korea: Journal of Technology Innovation (JTI) and Journal of Korea Technology Innovation
Society (J-KOTIS). The analysis sequence will first identify authors with the most papers
published in these two academic journals. Then the research topics of their published
articles will be categorized under the concept of an NIS.
There are four contributions from this study. First, the literature for the systematic
review was selected based on publication scores. This approach could better track academic
interest in the field of IS in Korea, because it allowed the selection of studies from Korean
researchers who are most active. Second, a systematic classification system was constructed
to organize the results of content analysis. This assisted in coherently conducting the
content analysis. Third, the findings of this study helped determine whether IS provided a
knowledge base for the development of the NIS in Korea. Fourth, we present the challenges
IS faces in improving the NIS in the future.
In the next section, we define the concepts of NISs and IS, and discuss limitations
in existing research. The third section uses a systematic literature review method to
select papers to explore the research trends regarding NISs and IS in Korea. In the fourth
section, the findings are described, and in the last section, we discuss the implications and
challenges of IS for enhancing Korea’s NIS.
2. Theoretical Background
The theoretical background of this research is divided into two parts: NISs and IS.
First, the concept and definition of an NIS will be reviewed as the theoretical basis to
discussing IS from within NISs, in order to construct a framework based on the elements of
NISs and mechanisms therefrom. Then, by going over existing literature on IS, a working
definition of IS will be proposed to meet the purpose of this research paper. In order to
verify the necessity of this paper, we will review existing research in which the current
status of Korea’s IS has been discussed.
2.1. National Innovation Systems

2.1.1. Concepts and Definitions
At the turn of the twentieth century, technological innovation differed by country,
leading to economic development gaps. In the 1980s, an attempt to understand technological
innovation at the national level emerged: a national innovation system. According to
Freeman himself, the concept of an NIS was born out of an academic exchange between
Freeman and Lundvall, all under the influence of List [30] (p. 1). Since then, as seen in Table 1,
various researchers have come up with the concept of an NIS, based on the characteristics of
the object they wish to explore [31] (p. 37). While the definitions may slightly differ in terms
of what is emphasized, they all share the common idea that the role of the public sphere,
such as governments and institutions, is critical when it comes to enhancing the innovative
capacity of a country.
The definition of an NIS differs among researchers because they have come to define
an NIS within the context of the system in which they are interested. There is no single
principle that will work simultaneously in multiple systems; even within the national
system of a country, operating mechanisms may differ by subsystem [5]. This is known
in social science as context sensitivity [32–34]. According to Ahn [35] (pp. 133–134), when
research on NISs first started, it attempted to classify the categories by country, and to
understand the developmental process of innovation for each country according to their
historical, political, and cultural context.
Meanwhile, there are ongoing criticisms of the limitations of an NIS because of its
systemic approach. Regardless, the common features of NISs from the systemic aspect
are organizations and institutions, and the focus is on the roles of actors and networking,
centered around the government. As such, an approach focused on NISs serves as the
theoretical background for innovation policies, by emphasizing the role of government in
increasing innovation capacities across a country, through correcting systemic failures by
facilitating the networks between actors who make up the innovation system [36].
Table 1. National Innovation Systems: Definitions and Characteristics.
Researcher Definitions Characteristics

“The network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose Introduces the concept of National
Freeman
activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new Innovation Systems and emphasizes
(1987)
technologies . . . ” [37] (p. 1) institutional factors
Defines national innovation systems in a
“ . . . elements and relationships which interact in the production,
narrow and broad sense, focusing on the
Lundvall diffusion and use of new, and economically useful, knowledge and that a
institutes and organizations which make
(1992) national system encompasses elements and relationships, either located
up the main elements of a national
within or rooted inside the borders of a nation state.” [2] (p. 2)
innovation system
Nelson and Develops the concept by applying an
“ . . . a set of institutions whose interactions determine the innovative
Rosenberg evolutionary perspective to analyze
performance, in the sense above, of national firms.” [3] (p. 4)
(1993) each country
“ . . . the national institutions, their incentive structures and their Approaches from the perspective of the
Patel and Pavitt competencies, that determine the rate and direction of technological total capacity of institutions participating
(1994) learning (or the volume and composition of change-generating activities) in technological innovation at a
in a country.” [38] (p. 79) national level
“ . . . set of distinct institutions which jointly and individually contribute
to the development and diffusion of new technologies and which provide Focuses on those affected by the
Metcalfe the framework within which governments form and implement policies to government’s establishment and
(1995) influence the innovation process. As such it is a system of interconnected implementation of technological
institutions to create, store and transfer the knowledge, skills and artifacts innovation policies
which define new technologies.” [39] (pp. 462–463)
Source: OECD [40] (p. 10), Park [31] (pp. 35–39), Sharif [4] (pp. 746–748).
2.1.2. Elements and Framework

In general, the components of an innovation system comprise individuals and organi-
zations, referred to as groups of individuals. Particularly within an NIS, actors (innovators)
and interactions among actors, as well as policies and institutions supporting the inter-
actions, can be considered the main components [5,36]. Here, actors include enterprises,
universities, public research institutes, and governments, all of which can be categorized
in different ways. For instance, if the purpose of innovation is to create economic value,
then actors can be divided into two groups: corporate and non-corporate. Or, they could be
classified into direct actors, such as enterprises, universities, and research institutes directly
involved in innovative activities, and indirect actors, such as a government supporting the
innovative activities of direct actors. Indirect actors are also known as supporting actors.
What is interesting here is that in an NIS, the government plays a central role even though
it is a supporting actor. This is because the government sets the stage for actors to conduct
innovative activities.
Actors of innovation, and interactions among them, can be configured into a frame-
work. As shown in Figure 1, this paper seeks to present an NIS framework based on the
principal elements and achievements of the NIS approach. The most well-known model is
from the OECD [41], and there are other frameworks presented by Korean researchers such
as Lee and Song [42], Chung [43], and Hong [44]. However, the OECD model [41] (p. 23)
and the framework by Lee and Song [42] (p. 10) seem to be rather complicated because
of their detailed structuring of the innovation process and elements within an NIS. The
frameworks by Chung [43] (p. 192) and Hong [44] (p. 97), on the other hand, seem to have
simplified the frameworks by focusing on actors.
Figure 1. The framework of a national innovation system.
The framework proposed in this paper is based on the works of existing researchers,
but has stressed the elements and performance of the NIS approach. To start, the framework
has been designed to distinguish the roles of direct actors and supporting actors of innova-
tion. Government has been placed in the center, because it usually has the supporting role
of coordinating and encouraging the innovative activities of diverse actors at the national
level, under a long-term national development plan. The direct actors of innovation are
placed around government in order to emphasize their interactions, since they receive
directions and support for innovative activities from the government. The interaction
network among direct actors is expressed as double-headed arrows. On the other hand, the
network between the government and other actors has been described using single-headed
arrows to show reversible reactions. Here, the arrows pointing toward the government
represent various demands by actors which are accepted by the government, and the
arrows pointing away from government represent the government’s support. In other
words, if double-headed arrows represent interactions among actors during innovative
activities, single-headed arrows in reversible reactions do not represent interactions, but
the movement of information and resources.
Next, policies and institutions expressed as a circle in the middle represent the arena
in which innovators are active, and surrounding the circle is a larger circle representing the
country’s social, cultural, and economic environments. Various innovative achievements
generated through the innovative activities of an NIS diffuse to the national environment,
then return to the national innovation system, causing innovation capital to develop
continuously. In the past, the goal of the NIS approach was mostly toward economic
feasibility, but today, the focus has shifted toward social cohesion. According to the co-
evolution theory of innovation by Yi et al. [45], today the term innovation applies widely. It
covers a wide range, and thus must include not just technological and economic innovation,
but also social and policy innovation. For this reason, social innovation has been added
in addition to technological innovation and economic innovation within the framework.
Policy innovation, however, is not indicated in the framework because it is regarded as
inherent in the system, based on the feedback from other innovative performances.
2.2. Innovation Studies

Although IS has a more extended academic history than NISs, there seems to be no
clear consensus among scholars on the theoretical definition of the concept. According
to Martin [16,46], who is a prominent scholar of IS still active in the field, IS “comprises
economic, management, organizational and policy studies of science, technology and
innovation, with a view to providing useful inputs for decision-makers concerned with
policies for, and the management of, science, technology and innovation” [46] (p. 433).
While his definition centers around the purpose of and academic approaches to IS, the
background as to why his definition is not content-based but research-method-based can
be found in the work of Fagerberg et al. [18] (p. 10), which states that innovation studies
“may be approaching a Kuhnian juncture”. Fagerberg et al. also claimed that innovation
studies “may be defined as the scholarly study of how innovation takes place and what the
important explanatory factors and economic and social consequences are”, indicating that
the definition came from a content-based aspect of academics [17] (p. 1132).
According to Martin [16], innovation today covers both science and technology. Since
the concept of science policy was introduced in the 1960s, it has evolved into broader
concepts such as research policy, science and technology policy, and science and technology
innovation policy [47]. The reality is that there is no single unification of terms related to
IS [16,45]. Among the terms mentioned so far, the only term that can cover science, technol-
ogy, and research is innovation. Innovation policies are a crucial means for governments to
support the innovative activities of other actors in an NIS project. Thus, the concept of an
NIS is an essential topic for IS, and IS can be considered an academic field that studies the
overall structure of an NIS, including its elements, actors, and the creation and diffusion
of innovation achievements, in order to provide a knowledge base for governments to
establish innovation policies to support an NIS.
As mentioned by Fagerberg et al. [18] (p. 10), innovation studies “may be approaching
a Kuhnian juncture”, and there needs to be an adequate definition of innovation studies for
this research paper to move forward. To summarize what has been discussed so far, this
research paper defines innovation studies as “an academic field that studies innovation in
terms of its concept and type; process and characteristics; source; promotion and deterrence
factors; and diffusion and transfer, all of which derive from the individual innovation
activities of enterprises, universities, research institutes, the government, and interactions
among actors”. This definition includes an aspect of NISs and the main research scope of
technological innovation theory, which can be understood as a narrower definition of IS.
The main research scope of the technological innovation theory mentioned here has been
drawn from the existing research of Yi et al. [45].
Considering the content-based scope of IS, NISs can be regarded as one of the topics of
IS. This research, however, focuses on the fact that the purpose of IS is to provide necessary
information for an NIS to develop “policies and institutions”, which serve as the arena
for actors. From the aspect of an NIS, this research seeks to suggest the direction for the
development of IS by verifying that the elements of NISs are being thoroughly researched
by IS, and the development of an NIS is actually in line with the current status of IS, etc.
2.3. Existing Literature

In Korea, there were few attempts to develop the theory of NISs from an academic
stance. Instead, many studies focused on introducing the theories and principles of leading
scholars in NISs, such as Freeman and Lundvall, drawing implications for their application
in Korea. In order to check the current status of research papers on the topic of NIS, papers
were searched with the keyword “national innovation system” in the paper titles and
keyword category of the KCI (Korea Citation Index) Journal Database, which led to a total
of 55 papers. If the text category was also included in the search scope, there would have
been about 800 papers, but it would be inaccurate to include those papers in which the
keyword appears only once or twice within the text. As such, the search has been limited to
titles and keywords, and papers in search results were classified into three types: first, an
analysis of the structure and characteristics of the NIS in Korea; two, a comparison of NISs
between Korea and other countries; and three, a case study on the elements and subsystems
of NISs.
Next, previous literature on the status of IS was reviewed. The works of Martin [16,46]
and Fagerberg et al. [18] are considered representative studies on the analyses of the status
of IS. Because their research scope was not limited to a particular region, a discussion on it
is inevitable that European and American scholars who lead IS worldwide are at the center
of the discussion.
In the 1990s, IS was introduced in Korea. After the 2000s, several studies attempted
to elucidate the intellectual structure of Korea’s IS using bibliometrics, but no research
analyzed IS from the perspective of NISs. Table 2 shows the findings from the analysis
of research subjects of papers published in Korean academic journals related to IS. How-
ever, because the region is limited to Korea, it seemed challenging to identify influential
researchers such as Martin or Fagerberg and their works in reference to citation indexes in
order to analyze the status of IS. It is perhaps for the same reason that Lee [48] analyzed
all the papers published in the chosen journal when he attempted to study the progress of
IS in Asia, mainly focusing on Korea. Additionally, an existing study examined scientific
innovation and NISs based more on web data than academic journals [49].
Table 2. Studies on the knowledge structure of innovation studies.
Researcher Year Journal Subject

JTI/ Analysis of the topics, goals, and methods of
Namn et al. [50] 2005 J-KOTIS/ technological innovation research in Korea using
KSBI keywords and citations
JTI/ Analysis of the characteristics of major research fields in
Namn and Seol [51] 2007
J-KOTIS innovation studies of Korea by journal
Analysis of the evolutionary characteristics of Asian
Lee, K. R. [48] 2014 AJTI
innovation studies over the decade
Exploration of the changes in research topics and methods
Lee et al. [19] 2017 JTI
in innovation studies in Korea
Table 2. Cont.
Researcher Year Journal Subject

Analysis of the community structure of thesis topics
Kim and Lee [20] 2017 JTI
using keywords
JTI/ Analysis of knowledge structure and knowledge flow
Kim and Yi [21] 2018
J-KOTIS through an analysis of a network of keywords
Analysis of knowledge structure and knowledge
JTI/
Oh and Yi [22] 2021 production structure using author bibliography
J-KOTIS
coupling analysis
Note: JTI = Journal of Technology Innovation published by the Korea Society for Innovation Management and
Economics (KOSIME); J-KOTIS = Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society published by the Korea Technology
Innovation Society (KOTIS); KVMR = The Korean Venture Management Review published by the Korean Asso-
ciation of Small Business Studies; AJTI = Asian Journal of Technology Innovation (AJTI) published by the Korea
Society for Innovation Management and Economics (KOSIME). Source: Oh and Yi [22] (p. 45), rearranged and
partially modified.
3. Methodology
This section will discuss the systematic literature review method, selecting articles
and conducting content analysis. Systematic reviews were conducted to appraise existing
research in the area of interest at the initial stage of research, but they are also studies with
essential findings in themselves [52].
We set the analysis period according to the status of the academic development of IS
in Korea. The NIS in Korea was divided into three phases, referring to the discussions by
Chung [43] and Hong [44], and 50 Years of Science and Technology in Korea [53], published
by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT). The first phase spans from 1950 into the 1970s,
when the foundation was laid. The second phase would be the “take-off” phase, from the
1980s to 1990 for about two decades, and the third phase is the developmental phase, from
the 2000s to the present day.
During the foundational phase and the early take-off, science and technology devel-
oped institutionally under the leadership of the government. They, therefore, lacked the
theoretical basis to support policy-making. It was not until the 1990s that academic soci-
eties and journals focused on IS came into existence. The analysis period for this research
therefore was from 1993, when relevant communities began to publish scholarly journals,
to 2020. Table 3 shows the analysis period and phases.
Table 3. The developmental process of NIS in Korea and the analysis period.
1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

NIS Foundational Take-off Development
Analysis period - - - - Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
3.1. Selecting Articles by the Review Protocol

We selected the articles to be reviewed according to the review protocol in Figure 2.
• Step 1. Journal selection
The objective of this research is to review IS studies that mainly discussed the NIS
in Korea. Databases, such as Scopus and Web of Science, do not cover articles written or
published in Korea. Therefore, this study selected two Korean academic journals, The Journal
of Technology Innovation (JTI) and The Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society (J-KOTIS).
It may be a limitation of this study that it analyzes only two Korean journals. However,
it is more appropriate to refer to journals published in Korea that reveal characteristics in
that country. Those two journals are representative academic journals that mainly focus on
IS. They were frequently chosen in prior studies analyzing the intellectual structure of IS
in Korea.
Figure 2. Review protocol for selecting articles.
• Step 2. Papers and authors

There were 1442 papers published, 595 in JTI from 1993 to May 2020, and 844 papers in
J-KOTIS from 1998 to May 2020. The figures for publications by analysis period are shown
in Table 4. Excluding non-Korean authors, there were 1427 papers written by 1608 authors
in all.
Table 4. Research subjects [unit: no. of papers].
Journal Title 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–May 2020 Total

JTI 109 227 262 598
J-KOTIS 94 340 410 844
Total 203 567 672 1442
• Step 3. Publication scores calculation

The publication score for 1608 authors, excluding non-Korean authors, was calculated
by first-and-corresponding-author-weighted fractional counting in consideration of multi-
ple authors. 0.7 credit was awarded to the first and corresponding authors and 1/n credit
to the remaining co-authors, where n is the total number of authors.
• Step 4. Author selection
The top 111 researchers, 6.9% of all authors, had published 739 papers, 51.86% of all
documents. This criterion is widely used in author-based bibliometric analyses [54,55]. It
would be safe to say that Martin [16] also chose highly cited papers for his research on
science and technology policy and innovation studies for the same reason.
• Step 5. Confirming papers to be reviewed
Before content analysis, the papers to be reviewed should be confirmed. As explained
earlier, 111 authors were selected based on their publication scores among 1608 authors of
1427 papers. Table 5 summarizes their publication scores and the number of papers. The
author with the highest publication score received 29.15 points for 40 articles.
Table 5. Publication scores and papers per selected author.
Publication Scores No. of Authors % Publication Papers No. of Authors %

≥25 3 2.7 ≥30 3 2.7
≥20 - - ≥20 3 2.7
≥15 3 2.7 ≥10 19 17.1
≥10 9 8.1 9 8 7.2
≥5 28 25.2 8 10 9.0
≥4 15 13.5 7 6 5.4
≥3 30 27.0 6 15 13.5
<3 23 20.7 <5 47 42.3
Total 111 100.0 111 100.0
Next, Table 6 shows 739 papers by year and journal. As in Table 4, there are signifi-
cantly more papers from J-KOTIS than JTI among all the selected articles, even though the
span of publication for J-KOTIS is much shorter than JTI.
Table 6. Papers of selected authors by year.
Year JTI J-KOTIS Year JTI J-KOTIS Year JTI J-KOTIS

2001 6 13 2011 7 32
2002 10 19 2012 13 22
1993 3 2003 12 18 2013 17 26
1994 4 2004 13 17 2014 19 20
1995 6 2005 13 35 2015 13 11
1996 2 2006 11 24 2016 21 17
1997 11 2007 7 17 2017 18 23
1998 7 17 2008 10 18 2018 11 30
1999 9 18 2009 7 20 2019 9 19
2000 14 16 2010 3 20 2010 2 9
Sub-total 56 51 92 201 130 209
Total 739
3.2. Framework for Content Analysis

The classification system to organize content analysis results is divided into two parts:
process-based and content-based. According to Yi et al. [45], the content-based research
would be about science and technology, as well as various sectors seeking innovation. On
the other hand, process-based research would be about innovative activities. Table 7 shows
the analytical framework, including the sub-categories.
Table 7. Analytical framework.
Perspectives Contents
Innovation studies Process-based Research scopes
Innovation actors
Content-based Industry and technology sectors
Table 8 shows the categories for the procedural aspect, divided into research scopes
and innovation actors. Research scopes were rearranged from the perspective of the NIS,
categorizing the research scopes of science and technology policy research, as suggested by
Yi et al. [45]. First of all, various research scopes of IS were categorized into NIS-related
and not related to the NIS, which were further sub-categorized. Under the category of NIS-
related, there could be two sub-categories at the national level, technological innovation
and policies and institutions. Then technological innovation could be further broken down
into concept/type, process/feature, source of innovation, promotion/deterrence, and
diffusion/transfer. As for policies and institutions, they could be further sub-categorized

into policy-making, policy implementation, policy evaluation, organization management,
human resources management, and financial management. However, the management of
innovative activities at the independent organization level seemed to have low relevance to
the NIS.
Table 8. Categories under the process-based aspect of innovation.
Concept/type
Process/feature
Technological innovation Source of innovation
Promotion/deterrence
Diffusion/transfer
NIS-related Policy-making
Research scopes Policy implementation
Policy evaluation
Policies and institutions
Organization management
Human resources
management
Financial management
Not related to NIS
Enterprises
Universities
Actors of innovation Public research institutes
Individual
Country
Actors refer to individuals or organizations directly involved in innovation, such

as enterprises, universities, and public research institutes. For this research, they were
sub-categorized into individuals, enterprises, universities, public research institutes, and
country, because actors are made up of individuals and a country exists as an actor com-
prising all of them. While the government is considered a non-direct actor in NISs, it
was not necessarily separated because government activities are inherent to policies and
institutions.
Next, as shown in Table 9, the sub-categories of the content-based aspect can be
divided into regional innovation systems (RIS) and sectoral innovation systems (SIS) as
well as the NIS. To further discuss at the sectoral level, SIS were further divided into sub-
categories of industrial sectors and technological sectors. The categories were selected in
reference to Korea’s National Science and Technology Standard Classification System [56],
but some sub-categories have been grouped together.
A systematic guideline was a tool for consistently analyzing IS. Several existing studies
categorized and labeled a topic using judgment based on experience and a search of titles,
abstracts, keywords, etc. This is likely because the academic status of IS is unstable, and
lacking in a research scope agreed upon by all scholars. However, because their categoriza-
tion did not distinguish between the area of research and the level of analysis, there could be
difficulty when conducting contextual analysis. This research, however, was systematically
conducted by utilizing the classification system.
Table 9. Categories under the content-based aspect of innovation.
NIS
RIS
Industry as a whole
Manufacturing as a whole
Manufacturing (metal/non-metal)
Manufacturing (medical equipment)
Manufacturing (medicine)
Manufacturing (vehicle/transportation equipment)
Industries Manufacturing (electrics/machinery)
Manufacturing (electronics/telecommunications)
Application Manufacturing (chemical)

Construction
Agriculture/forestry/fisheries
Arts/sports/leisure
Services
Advancement of knowledge
Health
National defense
Public sector
SIS
Earth exploration
Environment
Energy
Nature (mathematics/physics/chemistry/earth science)
Agriculture/fishery/food
Life Health care
Life science
Construction/transportation
Machinery
Science and technology
Energy/resources
Research fields Nuclear power
Artifacts
Materials
Electrics/electronics
Information/communications
Chemical engineering
Humanities and social science
Interdisciplinary
Not focused
4. Analysis of Selected Papers from JTI and J-KOTIS

This section discusses the results of the literature review, according to the analytical
framework design based on the theoretical discussions.
4.1. Process-Based Aspect of Innovation

4.1.1. Research Scopes
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FORItPEER
canREVIEW
be seen
that there is a difference in research scopes between the take-off phase
14 of 25
and the developmental
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW phase (Table 10). 14 of 25
Table 10. Research

Table 12.scopes
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of selected
Sub-categories papers
of policies and[unit: no. of[unit:
institutions papers (%)].
no. of papers (%)].
14 of 25
Policy and2022, Institutions Table 12. Sub-categories
1993–2000of policies and institutions2011–2020
2001–2010 [unit: no. of papers (%)]. Total Remarks
Sustainability 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25
Research Scopes 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total Remarks
Policy-making
Policy and Institutions 22 (62.9)
1993–2000 22 (36.1)
2001–2010 28 (35.0)
2011–2020 72 (40.9)
Total ↘
Remarks
NIS Policy implementation
Policy-making 68Table
(63.6) 221 (62.9)
(2.9)
12. Sub-categories 214 (73.0) 225and
of policies (8.2)institutions
(36.1) 251 (74.0)28 7 (35.0)
(8.8)
[unit: no. of 533
papers 13
(%)].
(72.1)
72 (7.4)
(40.9) ↗
↘
TechnologicalPolicy
Policy evaluation
implementation
innovation 33Table
(30.8) 5 (14.3)
1 (2.9)
12. Sub-categories 12
of policies
153 (52.2) (19.7)
5and
(8.2)institutions
171 (50.4) 12 (15.0)
7 (8.8)
[unit: no. of 357
papers 29
13 (16.5)
(%)].
(48.3) (7.4) ↘
↗
Policy and Institutions 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total Remarks
Organization
Policy evaluation management 51 (2.9)
(14.3) 123 (4.9)
(19.7) 127 (8.8)
(15.0) 11
29 (6.3)
(16.5) ↗
↘
Policy-making
Policies and Policy
institutions
and Institutions 35 (32.7) 22 (62.9)
1993–2000 22
61 (20.8) 2001–2010 (36.1) 80 (23.6) 28 (35.0)
2011–2020 72
176 (23.8) (40.9)
Total ↘
Remarks
Human resources
management 4 (11.4)
1 (2.9)
(2.9) 9 (14.8)
3 (8.2)
(4.9) 12 (15.0)
7 (8.8)
(8.8) 25 (14.2)
11 (7.4)
(6.3) ↗
↗
Policy implementation
Policy-making 1
222 (62.9) 5 7 13 ↗
Non-NIS Financialresources
Human management management
39 (36.4) 4
79 (27.0) 22
(5.7)
(11.4) 10
9
(36.1)
(16.4)88 (26.0)28
(14.8) 14 (35.0)
12 (17.5) 206 (27.9)
(15.0)
72
26 (40.9)
25 (14.8)
(14.2)
↘
↗
Policy evaluation 5 (14.3) 12 (19.7) 12 (15.0) 29 (16.5) ↗
↘
Total Policy
Total implementation 107 (100) 351 (2.9)
293 (100) 10
(100) 615 (8.2)
(100)339 (100)14 807 (8.8)
(100) 739 (100) 13 (7.4)
176 (100) ↗
Financial
management 2 (5.7) (16.4) (17.5) 26 (14.8) ↗
Policy evaluation 51(14.3)
(2.9) 123 (19.7)
(4.9) 127 (15.0)
(8.8) 11(16.5)
29 (6.3) ↗
↘
Total Note: % = The Note: ↗=Thetrend
increasing increasing
35 (100)
over trend &
time; over
61
= time;
(100)
The ↘=The decreasing
decreasing 80
trend(100)
overtrend
time.over 176time.
(100)
Human resources
management 41(11.4)
(2.9) 93(14.8)
(4.9) 127 (15.0)
(8.8) 25
11(14.2)
(6.3) ↗
↗
Financialresources
management Note: ↗=The increasing (5.7) trend over
2(11.4) 10 (16.4)↘=The decreasing
time; (17.5) trend over
14 (15.0) 26time.
(14.8) ↗
Human management 4 9 (14.8) 12
Meanwhile, another sub-category showing a growth trend is policy implementation, 25 (14.2) ↗
Total
Financial managementThe first phase 35
tended2 (100)to be more
(5.7) 61 (16.4)
10 (100)
geared toward 80 (17.5)
14 (100)
the policies 176
26 (100)institutions
and
(14.8) ↗in of the
whereas policy evaluation, which was showing growing aingrowth the 2000s, somewhat decreased the
Total NIS. In contrast, Note:Meanwhile,
↗=The
research another
increasing
35 on
(100)
sub-category
technological
trend over
61 time;
(100) ↘=The
innovation
decreasing
80 (100)
trend
increased
trend over istime.
176
policy implementation,
significantly
(100) until 2020,
2010s
whereas andpolicy
2020s.evaluation,
Other trendingwhichsub-categories
was growing in weretheorganization
2000s, somewhat management,
decreasedhuman in the
although the resources↗=The
difference isOther
nottrenddramatic ↘=The
(Figure 3). This finding was is in accord with
the in-the
Note:
and management,
2010sMeanwhile, increasing
2020s. another
andover
financial
trending time;
sub-category
management
sub-categories
showing
decreasing
awere (Figure
growth
trend5).over
organization
trend
This
is
time. in line
management,
policy
with human
implementation,
argument that crease the
resources government’s
seen rolefinancial
in policy implementation.
management, and is crucial in enhancing
In other words, the
an increase innovative
inisinterest capacity
in thethe ofin-the
appli-
whereas
cation of policy
Meanwhile,
policies evaluation,
another
in which
sub-category
institutions wasmanagement
diffused growing
showing
to an a
increase
(Figure
ingrowth
the 2000s,
in
5).somewhat
trend
interest
This
is policy
toward
in decreased
line with
implementation,
researching in the
the
NIS at the nationalcreaseand
2010s
level.
seen2020s.
in policyIt could
Other
also
implementation.
trending
be said that IS
In other words,
sub-categories
provided
were
the knowledge
an increase inmanagement,
organization
required
interest in thehuman appli-for
the government whereas
field ofto
cation of policy
public
establish
policies evaluation,
management.
in policies which
institutionsOndiffused
and thewas
develop growing
other tohand, in thefact
the
institutions,
an increase 2000s,
in that somewhat
there
supporting
interest was the
toward adecreased
decrease in
in the
establishment
researching re-
resources
2010s
search and
on management,
2020s.
evaluation Other andbefinancial
trending
could an management
sub-categories
interpretation were
that (Figure 5).assessments
organization
rigorous This management,
is in line hinder the the
withinnova-
human in-
of the NIS. crease field of
Increasing public management.
research
seenmanagement,
in On the other
related to technological
policy implementation. hand,
In other words, the fact
innovation that
an increasethere
from was a decrease
2001 toin2020
inisinterest thethe in re-
seemed
appli-
resources
tion.
search on evaluation couldandbefinancial
an management
interpretation that (Figure
rigorous 5).assessments
This in line with
hinder innova- in-
to be affected cation
crease
Policies and Institutions (No.
byof growing
policies
seen
of Papers) in policy interest
in in the
institutions
implementation. technological
diffused to
In and
Policies an
other increase
words,
Institutions innovation
an
(%) interestactivities
in increase toward
in interest ofinindividuals
researching
the appli-the
tion.
field ofofpublic management. Ondiffused
thestabilized.
other hand, the fact that there was a researching
decrease in the re-
30
and organizations
cation after
policies the in NIS in Korea
institutions
70.0 to an increase in interest toward
Policies and Institutions (No. of Papers) 62.9 Policies and Institutions (%)
search on evaluation
28
field of public management. could be an interpretation that rigorous
On the other hand, the fact that there was assessments hinder innova-
a decrease in re-
Policy-making
25 60.0
30 22 tion. 70.0
22 62.9
28 could be
50.0 an interpretation that rigorous assessments Policy hinder innova-
implementation
Policy-making
20 Policies and Institutions 60.0 Policies and36.1
Institutions (%)
25 22 (No. of Papers)
tion. 35.0
22 14 40.0
15 50.0 evaluation
20
30 Policies and Institutions12(No. of Papers) 2812 70.0 62.9 Policies and36.1Institutions (%)
30.0 35.0
10 14
12 40.0
14.3 19.7 17.5 15.0 Policy-making
10
15
25 5 60.0 Policy evaluation
30 2212
9 12
7 20.0
70.0
4 22 28 30.0 11.4 62.9 16.4 15.0
5 5 50.0 14.8 17.5 Policy
Humanimplementation
resources management
10
20
25 2 5 10 12
7 10.0
60.0 5.7 14.3 8.2 19.7 15.0
8.8 Policy-making
229 7 20.0 36.1
14 22 3 14 40.0 2.9
11.4 16.4 4.9 35.0 15.0
8.8
0
155 5 0.0
50.0 14.8 Policy
Human evaluation
implementation
20 21 1st 7 10.0 5.7
2.9 8.2 8.8
2nd12
3 3rd 12 30.0 1st 2nd
36.1 3rd
35.0
1 (1993–2000) 10 14
12 40.0 2.9 4.9
19.7 17.5 8.8
100
15 (2001–2010) (2011–2020) 0.0 14.3
(1993–2000) (2001–2010) 15.0
(2011–2020) Organization
Policy management
evaluation
1 5 1st 2nd12
9 3rd 12
7 20.0
30.0
2.9
11.4 1st 16.4 2nd 3rd 15.0
4 5 17.5
5 (a) Policies and institutions
10 [unit: no.(2011–2020)
of papers]
12
7 (b)
14.3Policies and
5.7(1993–2000) 8.2institutions
14.8
19.7 [unit: %] 15.0 Human resources
management
10 2 (1993–2000)
5 (2001–2010) 10.0
20.0
(2001–2010) (2011–2020)
8.8
14 93 7 2.9
11.4 16.4 4.9 15.0
8.8
0
5 (a) Policies and 5
institutions [unit: no. of papers] 0.0 (b) Policies and institutions
14.8 [unit: %] Financialresources
Human management
management
7 5.7
2nd3 Figure 5. Sub-categories
21 1st 10.0of policies
2.9 and institutions.
8.2 8.8
3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
1 (1993–2000) 2.9 4.9 8.8
0 (2001–2010) (2011–2020) 0.0 (1993–2000) (2001–2010) (2011–2020) Financial management
1 1st 2nd Figure 5. Sub-categories
3rd of policies
2.9
1st
and institutions. 2nd 3rd
(a) Policies and institutions
(1993–2000) (2001–2010) [unit: Table 13 shows the findings
no.(2011–2020)
of papers] (b) for policy-making,
Policies
(1993–2000) and which
institutions [unit:
(2001–2010) %] has the
(2011–2020)
greatest representation
under the policies and institutions sector. The sub-categories of policy-making were
[unit: Table
(a) Policies and institutionsFigure 13 shows the findings
no.5.ofSub-categories
papers] of policies
for
(b)and policy-making,
Policies which
and institutions [unit:
institutions. %] has the greatest representation
agenda-setting,
Figure 3. Research
under the scopes policy
of
policies formulation,
selected
and papers.
institutions and policyThe
sector. change. In general, of
sub-categories policy-making
policy-making includes
were
agenda-setting
Figure 5. and
Sub-categories
agenda-setting, policy
policy of formulation,
policies
formulation, and but not
institutions.
and policy policy
change. change
In [57–59].
general, For this
policy-making paper, how-
includes
Table
policy13change
showsis the findings forin policy-making, which hasprocesses
the greatest representation
Table ever,
11 indicates
agenda-setting the viewed
and sub-categories
policy to be
formulation, connection
under
but not with
technological
policy policy
change Forinthis
innovation.
[57–59]. the past, and
Even
paper, is
though
how-
under
part of the
Tablethe policies
13 shows and
the
decision-making institutions
findings
processfor sector. The
policy-making,
for new sub-categories
which
agenda-setting has
andtheof policy-making
greatest
policy were
representation
formulation [60].
there was agenda-setting,
no distinct
ever, policy change trend
policy in
is viewedthe 1990s
to be in
formulation, andfor technological
connection
policyThe with In
change. policyinnovation-related
processes
general, in the past,
policy-making research
and is
includes
due to theunder All
part
lowofofthethe
number
agenda-setting
policies and
theagenda-setting,
decision-making
of policy
and studies,institutions
policy
studies
formulation,
sector.
formulation,
process for new
under
but
and
not
sub-categories
policy
agenda-setting change
process/feature
policy change and of policy-making
topics have
policy
[57–59]. were
For formulation
relatively
this paper,
were
been included
[60].
high
how-
agenda-setting,
under
All of policy-making.
the policy
agenda-setting, formulation,
policy and
formulation,policyandchange.
policy In general,
change policy-making
topics have been includes
included
compared ever, to other
policy
agenda-setting
sub-categories.
change is viewed This
to be can
in be interpreted
connection with as
policy an attempt
processes
and policy formulation, but not policy change [57–59]. For this paper, how- in theto understand
past, and is
under
part ofpolicy-making.
the decision-making process
innovativeever, activities,
policy because
change Korea
is viewed to be infor
acquired new
connectionagenda-setting
skills from abroad
with policy and policy
and
processes formulation
established
in [60].
relative
the past, and is
policies and All
partofofthetheagenda-setting,
institutions during policy
decision-making formulation,
thisprocess
period. new and
for Since policy
then, there
agenda-setting change
has
and topics
been have
policy been included
aformulation
slight decline
[60]. in
under policy-making.
the process/feature
All of the sub-category,
agenda-setting, butformulation,
policy it still accounts for achange
and policy large topics
portion
have ofbeen
technological
included
innovationunder topics. policy-making.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25

Table 11. Sub-categories of technological innovation [unit: no. of papers (%)].
Table 12. Sub-categories of policies and institutions [unit: no. of papers (%)]. 14 of 25
Technological Innovation
Policy and Institutions1993–2000 2001–2010
Table 12. Sub-categories
1993–2000 of policies and2011–2020
institutions2011–2020
2001–2010 Total(%)].
[unit: no. of papers Total Remarks
Remarks
Table 12. Sub-categories of policies and institutions [unit: no. of papers (%)].
Concept/type Policy-making
Policy and Institutions 3 (9.1) 22 10
(62.9) 22and
(6.5)of policies
1993–2000
Table 12. Sub-categories (36.1)
2001–2010 28 (35.0)
13 (7.6) 2011–2020
institutions [unit: 72
26 (7.3)
no. of papers (40.9)
Total
(%)]. ↘
Remarks
Policy and Institutions 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total Remarks
Policy implementation 1 (2.9) 5 (8.2) 7 (8.8) 13 (7.4) ↗
Process/featurePolicy-making
Policy-making 12 (36.4) 22
2246 (62.9)
(30.1)
(62.9) 22
22 (36.1) 38 (22.2) 28
(36.1) 28 (35.0)
(35.0) 96 (26.9) 72 (40.9)
72Total
(40.9) ↘
↘
Policy
Policy and Institutions
evaluation 1993–2000
5 (14.3) 2001–2010
12 (19.7) 2011–2020
12 (15.0) 29 (16.5) Remarks
↘
Policy implementation 5 (15.2) Table 12. 1126(2.9)
(2.9)
Sub-categories of policies5 (8.2)
5 (36.1)
and institutions 7 (8.8)
(8.2)31 (18.1) 287 (35.0)
(8.8)
[unit: no. of papers 13 (7.4)
13(40.9)
(%)].(7.4) ↗
↗
Source of innovation
Policy-making
Organization management 22 (17.0)
(62.9) 22 62 (17.4)
72 ↘
Policy
Policy evaluation
evaluation 551(14.3)
(2.9)
(14.3) 123 (4.9)
125 (19.7)
(19.7) 127 (8.8)
127 (15.0)
(15.0)
11(16.5)
29
29
(6.3)
(16.5)
↗
↘
↘
Policy
Promotion/deterrence implementation
Humanand
Policy resources 6 (18.2)
management
Institutions 147(2.9)
41(11.4)
1993–2000 (30.7) (8.2)
93(14.8)
2001–2010 64 (37.4) (8.8)
127 (15.0)
2011–2020 117 13
(32.8)
25 (7.4)
(14.2)
Total ↗
Remarks
↗
Organization
management (2.9)
1(14.3)
(2.9) 3 (4.9)
(4.9) 7 (8.8)
(8.8) 11 (6.3)
11(16.5)
(6.3) ↗
↗
Policy evaluation
Financialresources
management 5 12 (19.7) 12 (15.0) 29 ↘
Policy-making
Diffusion/transfer
Human
Human resources
7 (21.2)
management
management 44224
22 (5.7)
(62.9)
(15.7)
(11.4)
(11.4)
10
22 (16.4)
(36.1)
99 (14.8)
(14.8)
25 (14.6) 2814 (35.0)
12
12
(17.5) 56 (15.7)
(15.0)
(15.0)
26 (40.9)
72
25
25
(14.8)
(14.2)
(14.2)
↗
↘
↗
↗
Organization
Total
Policy management
implementation 3511 (2.9)
(100)
(2.9) 61 3 (4.9)
(100)
5 (16.4) 807 (8.8)
(100)
(8.2)171 (100) 147 (17.5)
(8.8) 11
176 (6.3)
(100)
13(14.8)
(7.4) ↗
↗
Total Financial
management 33 (100) 22153
(5.7)
(100)
(5.7) 10
10 (16.4) 14 (17.5) 26
357 (100)
26 (14.8) ↗
↗
Humanevaluation
Policy resources management 54 (11.4)
Note: ↗=The increasing
(14.3) 12
trend over 9 (14.8)
(19.7)
time; 12
12 (15.0)
↘=The decreasing
(15.0) trend over25
29 (14.2)
(16.5)
time. ↗
↘
Total
Total Note: % = The increasing 35
35
trend (100)
(100)
over time; & 61
61
= (100)
(100)
The decreasing 80
80 (100)
(100)
trend over time. 176
176 (100)
(100)
Organization management Note: ↗=The increasing 12 (2.9)
(5.7) 103 (16.4)
(4.9) 147 (17.5)
(8.8) 26
11 (14.8)
(6.3) ↗
↗
Note: ↗=The increasing trend
trend over time; ↘=The decreasing trend over time.
Total resources management
Human Meanwhile,35 (100)
another
4 (11.4) over
61
sub-category(100) ↘=The
time;
9 (14.8) showing decreasing
80
12 (100) trend
a (15.0)
growth over
trend is time.
176
25 (100) implementation,
policy
(14.2) ↗
Financial management Therewhereas Note: ↗=The
wasMeanwhile,
a change
policy in the
2 evaluation,
increasing
(5.7) trend which
over was↘=The
technological
10 time;
(16.4) innovation
growing 14in(17.5) sector,
the 2000s,
decreasing trend shifting
somewhat
over26 time. gradually
decreased ↗in the
(14.8) implementation, from
another sub-category showing
showing aawere growth trend
trend isis policy
Total the macroscopic 2010sMeanwhile,
whereas andtopolicy
2020s. another
a microscopic
35evaluation,
(100)
sub-category
Other trendingperspective.
sub-categories
61 (100)
which was Figure
growing
growth
4 clearly
80in(100)
the organization
2000s, showspolicy
somewhat
implementation,
increasing
management,
176 (100) decreased promo-
human
in the
whereas policy evaluation,
Meanwhile,
resources another which
sub-categorywasmanagement
growing aingrowth
showing the 2000s,
trendsomewhat
istopolicy decreased in the
implementation,
tion/deterrence 2010s
Note:
2010s
andmanagement,
↗=The
and
and
source
2020s.
2020s. Other
increasing
Other
and
of innovationfinancial
trending
trend over
trending ↘=The
topics.
sub-categories
time;
sub-categories
This were
decreasing
were
(Figure
is in 5).
contrast
organization
trend This
over
organization
is indecline
the line with
management,
time.
management,
the
inhuman
human
in-
research
whereas
crease policy
seen in evaluation,
policy which
implementation. was growing
In other in
words,the 2000s,
an somewhat
increase in decreased
interest in the in the
appli-
on processes and features.
resources
resources management,
management, Thereand was
and more research
financial
financial management
management on enhancing
(Figure
(Figure 5). innovative
5). This
This is
is in
in line
line performance
with
with the in-
the the
in-
2010sMeanwhile,
cation
crease and
of
seen 2020s.
policies
in Other
in
another
policy trending
institutions sub-categories
diffused
sub-category
implementation. to
showing
In other awere
an increase
growth
words, organization
in increase
an interest
trend is management,
toward
policy
in human
researching
implementation,
interest in the appli-
involving case studies
creaseofseen
resources
of enterprises.
in policy
management, implementation.
and
There
financial
was
In otheralso
management
some
words, research
an that
(Figure increase
5). This
on
inwasconcepts
interest
is in line in and
thethe
with
types.
appli-
in-
field
whereas public
policy management.
evaluation, On
which the
wasother hand,
growing the fact
inutilization
the 2000s, there
somewhat a decrease in re-
cation
In Korea, interest
cation
crease
search
of
of policies
in
seen
on in
evaluation
in
in institutions
ISpolicy
policieswas geared
institutions
implementation.
could be an
diffused
more toward
diffused In
to
to an
other
interpretation
increase
an its
increase
words,
that
in interest
in increase
an
rigorous than
interest thedecreased
toward
toward
in
assessmentsinterest
researching
development
researching
in
hinderthe
in the
the of
appli-
innova-
2010s
field
field ofand 2020s.
public Other trending
management. On thesub-categories
other hand,werethe organization
the fact that there management,
was aa decrease human
in re-
theory. Diffusioncationofof
tion.
resources
search
public
and
on
management.
transfer
policies
management,
evaluation
were On
in institutions
could andbe
more the
financial
an
other
studied
diffused tohand,
anin
management
interpretation
the
increase
that
fact
in that
earlier
(Figure
rigorous
there
days,
interest
5). This
was
in order
toward
is
assessments in
decrease
researching
line with
hinder
in the
the
innova-
re-
to introduce
in-
and adapt(No. search
toofthe on evaluation
innovation could
system. be an
OnIn interpretation
contrast, that
today, rigorous
more assessments
research was hinder innova-
Policies and Institutions field
crease
tion.
tion.
ofseen
public
Papers) management.
in policy implementation. the other
Policies
Inand hand, the (%)
Institutions
other words, fact
an that thereinwas
increase interest inon
thediffusing
a decrease in re-
appli-
30 technological
Policies and
search
Institutions (No.
onpolicies
Papers)
evaluation
ofinnovation
cation of among
in coulddifferent
be
institutions
70.0 andiffused
62.9
interpretation
organizations.
Policies to
and an that rigorous
increase
Institutions (%)in assessments
interest toward hinder innova-
researching the
Policies and Institutions (No. of Papers) 28
tion. Policies and Institutions (%)
Policy-making
2530 22
field
22 of public management.60.0
70.0 62.9
On the other hand, the fact that there was a decrease in re-
30 Policies and Institutions (No. of Papers) 28 70.0 62.9 Policies and Institutions (%)
28 50.0
could be an interpretation that rigorous assessments hinder innova-
Policy-making
20
25 60.0 Policy-making
25 22 60.0 36.1 35.0
30 22 22 40.0
70.0
15 22 tion. 14
28 50.0 62.9 evaluation
20 12 12 50.0 Policy implementation
Policy-making
20
25 Policies and Institutions (No. of Papers) 14 30.0
60.0 Policies and36.1Institutions (%) 35.0
10
15 22 1022 12
14
40.0
40.0 14.3 36.1
19.7 17.5
35.0 15.0 Organization
Policy management
evaluation
5 20.0
50.0 evaluation
15
20
30 12
9 12
7 30.0
70.0 11.4 16.4 15.0
4 5 12 2812 30.0 62.9 17.5
5
10 10 12
7 10.0
40.0 5.7 14.3 14.8
36.1
19.7
8.2 19.7 35.0 15.0
17.5 Human resources
management
10 2 5 10 14
12 20.0
60.0 14.3 8.8
15.0 Policy-making
Organization
Policy management
evaluation
15
25 14 225 9
2293 7 20.0 2.9
11.4 16.4 4.9 15.0
8.8
0 5 12 12
7 0.0
30.0 11.4 16.4 14.8 15.0 Financialresources
management
5 4 5 7 10.0
50.0 5.7 8.2 19.7 17.5 Human management
5
10
20 21 1st 102nd 3rd 127 10.0 2.9
5.7 14.3
1st 8.22nd14.8 8.8
3rd 15.0 Policy
Humanimplementation
resources
management
12 (1993–2000)
5 3 20.0 2.9 8.8
8.8
0 93
(2001–2010) (2011–2020) 7 0.0
40.0 2.9
11.4
(1993–2000) 16.4 36.14.9
(2001–2010) 35.0 15.0
8.8
(2011–2020)
0 14 5 14 0.0 4.9 Financial management
Policy evaluation
155 1 7 2.9 14.8 Financial
Human management
21 1st 2nd
12 3rd 12 10.0 5.7
2.9 1st 8.2 2nd 3rd 8.8
(a) 1st
Policies and 2nd
institutions [unit: no. of 3rd
papers] 30.0 1st
(b) Policies and 2nd
institutions [unit: 3rd
%]
100
1 (1993–2000)
(1993–2000) 10 3
(2001–2010)
(2001–2010)
(2011–2020)
(2011–2020)12 0.0
2.9(1993–2000)
14.3
(1993–2000)
(2001–2010)4.9
19.7
(2001–2010)
17.5 8.8
(2011–2020)
15.0
(2011–2020) Organization management
1 5 1st 3rd 7
2nd9 [unit: no. of papers]
20.0 2.9
11.4 1st 16.4 institutions
2nd 3rd 15.0
(a)
4 Policies and institutions
5 Figure 5.(2011–2020) (b) Policies and [unit: %]
5 (a) Policies and institutions [unit: no. ofSub-categories
papers]
7 of policies (b)and
5.7(1993–2000) institutions.
Policies and 8.2institutions
14.8 [unit: %] 8.8 Human resources management
2 (1993–2000) (2001–2010) 10.0 (2001–2010) (2011–2020)
1 3 2.9 4.9 8.8
0 (a) Policies and institutions Figure
[unit: 5.
no. Sub-categories
of papers] of
0.0 policies and
(b) institutions.
Policies and institutions [unit: %] Financial management
1 1st 2nd Figure 5. Sub-categories
Table 13 shows the
3rd offindings
policies
2.9 and institutions.
1st for policy-making,2nd which 3rd has the
(1993–2000) (2001–2010) (2011–2020) (1993–2000) (2001–2010) (2011–2020)
under
Figure the
5. policies
Sub-categories
Table 13 andof institutions
policies and sector. The
institutions. sub-categories of policy-making were
[unit: Table
(a) Policies and institutionsagenda-setting,13 shows
shows
no. of papers]
the
the
policy
findings
findings
formulation,
for policy-making,
(b) for policy-making,
Policies
and and institutions
policy change.
which
which
[unit:
has
has the greatest
thepolicy-making
In%]general, representation
includes
under
Figure 4. Sub-categories
under the
the policies and institutions
of technological
policies and sector.
innovation.
institutions sector. The
The sub-categories
sub-categories of
of policy-making
policy-making were
were
Table
agenda-setting
agenda-setting,13 shows
and the
policy
policy findings
formulation, for
formulation, policy-making,
and but not
policy policy
change. which
change
In has the greatest
[57–59].
general, For representation
this
policy-making paper, how-
includes
Figure 5. Sub-categories
agenda-setting, policy of policies
formulation, and institutions.
and policy change. In general, policy-making includes
underpolicy
ever, the policies and
change policy
is institutions
viewed to be in sector. The
connection sub-categories
with of policy-making
policy [57–59].
processes inthis
the past, andwereis
Table agenda-setting
12 shows
agenda-setting
agenda-setting,
part of the 13
the and
findings
and policy
policy
formulation,
for
formulation,
decision-making process and
for
but
the sub-categories
formulation, but not
policy
new
policy
policyofchange
change.
policies
notagenda-setting
change and
[57–59].
In general,
and
For this paper,
institutions,
Forformulation
policy-making
policy paper, how-
which
how-
includes
[60].
is
ever, Table
policy shows
change the
is findings
viewed to for
be inpolicy-making,
connection which
with has
policy the greatest
processes in representation
the past, and is
the secondAll scope
ever, ofagenda-setting,
policy
agenda-setting this and
research policy
change is paper.
viewed to beAccording
in connection to the change
with findings,
policy thereFor
processes is this
in a been
shift
the in interest
past, and is
part
part
ofofthe
under of the
the policies policy
theadecision-making
decision-making
formulation,
and institutions
process
process for
for
but
formulation,
sector.
new
new
not
and
Thepolicy
policy
agenda-setting
agenda-setting
[57–59].
change
sub-categories
and
and
topics have
policy
policy
paper,
of policy-making
formulation
formulation
how-
included
were
[60].
[60].
from “howunder to
ever,
All
turn
of policy policy
change
policy-making.
agenda-setting,
the
into
is
policy
agenda-setting,
an
viewed institution”
to
formulation,
policy be in
and
formulation,
to
connection
policy
“how
and with
change.
to
policy In
successfully
policy processes
general,
change
implement
in the
policy-making
topics have past,
been
policies
and
includes
included is
and institutions All of the
at agenda-setting,
the government policy formulation, and policy change topics have been included
part of the
agenda-setting
under
under and policy formulation, but not policy change [57–59]. For this paper, how-has
decision-making
policy-making.
policy-making.
level”.
process Throughout
for new the
agenda-settingentire period,
and policypolicy-making
formulation [60].
the highestever, All ofpolicy
ratio the
ofagenda-setting,
research, policy
change isparticularly
viewed toformulation,
be ininconnectionand policy
the early phase.
with change
This
policy topics
will be
processes have been
further
in the included
discussed
past, and is
Sustainability 2022, 14,inx FOR PEER
Table
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER 13.under
REVIEW policy-making.
part of the decision-making process for new agenda-setting and policy formulation
REVIEW
14 [60].
of 25
14 of 25
All of the agenda-setting, policy formulation, and policy change topics have been included
of policies and institutions [unit: no. of papers (%)]. 14 of 25
Table 12. Sub-categories of policies and institutions [unit: no. of papers (%)]. 14 of 25
Policy and Institutions 14 of 25
Policy and Institutions 1993–2000
1993–2000
2001–2010 2001–20102011–2020
2001–2010 2011–2020
2011–2020
TotalTotal
Total
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Policy-making Table 12. 22 (62.9)
Sub-categories of 22
policies (36.1)
and institutions 28 (35.0)
[unit: no. of papers 72 (40.9)
(%)]. ↘14 of 25
Policy-making Policy-making 22Table
(62.9)12. Sub-categories
22 (62.9) 22 (36.1) 22and
of policies (36.1) 28 (35.0)
institutions 28 (35.0)
[unit: 72 (40.9)
no. of papers 72 (40.9)
(%)]. ↘
Policy implementation 1 (2.9)
1 (2.9)5 (8.2) 5 (8.2)
5and
(8.2)institutions 7 (8.8)
7 (8.8) 13
13 (7.4)
(7.4) ↗
↗
Policy and 1Table
(2.9) 12. Sub-categories 7 (8.8)2011–2020 13 (7.4)
Policy and Institutions
Policy evaluation
Institutions 1993–2000
1993–2000
55 (14.3)
2001–2010
of policies
2001–2010
12 (19.7)
[unit:
2011–2020
12
no. of papers
(15.0) 29
Total
(%)].
Total
(16.5)
Remarks
Remarks
↘
Policy
Policy evaluation evaluation
Policy-making 5 Table 22 (14.3)
(14.3)12. Sub-categories(62.9)
12 (19.7) 12
22 (19.7)
(36.1) 12 (15.0) 12
28 (15.0)
(35.0) 29
72
29 (16.5) (16.5)
(40.9) ↘
↘
Policy-making
Organization
Policy management
and Institutions 22 (62.9)
11 (2.9)
1993–2000 22
of policies (36.1)
33and institutions
(4.9)
2001–2010 28 (35.0)
[unit: no. of papers
77 (8.8)
2011–2020 72 (40.9)
(%)].
11 (6.3)
Total ↘
↗
Remarks
Organization
Policy management
implementation 1 (2.9)
(2.9) 5 (4.9)
(8.2) 7 (8.8)
(8.8) 11
13 (6.3)
(7.4) ↗
↗
Policy
Human implementation
resources
Policy-making management 1 (2.9) 4
22 1(11.4)
(2.9)3 (4.9)
(62.9) 9
22 5(14.8)
(8.2) 7 (8.8)12
(36.1) 28 7 (15.0)
(8.8)
(35.0) 11 13(14.2)
(6.3)
25
72 (7.4)
(40.9) ↗
↗
↘
Humanevaluation
Policy
Policy resources
and management
Institutions 4 (14.3)
(11.4)
1993–2000
5 9 (14.8)
2001–2010
12 (19.7) 12 (15.0)
(15.0)
2011–2020
12 25Total
29 (14.2)
(16.5) Remarks
↗
↘
Human resourcesPolicy
Policy evaluation
implementation
management 4 (11.4) 521 (14.3)
(5.7)
(2.9)9 (14.8) 12
10 5 (19.7)
(16.4)
(8.2) 12 (15.0) 12
14 7 (15.0)
(17.5)
(8.8) 25 29
26
13
(14.2) (16.5)
(14.8)
(7.4) ↘
↗
Policy-making
Organization management 22 12 (2.9)
(5.7)
(62.9) 10
223 (16.4)
(36.1)
(4.9) 14
287 (17.5)
(35.0)
(8.8) 26
72
11 (14.8)
(40.9)
(6.3) ↗
↘
↗
Organization
Total
Policy management 35 1 (2.9)
(100) 61 3 (4.9)
(100) 80 7 (8.8)
(100) 11
176 (6.3)
(100) ↗
Policy evaluation
Total
Human implementation
resources management 2 (5.7) 35
4
51(14.3)
(100)
(2.9)
(11.4)10 (16.4) 12
61
9
(19.7)
(100) 14 (17.5)
5(14.8)
(8.2) 12
80
12
(15.0)
(100)
7 (15.0)
(8.8) 26 29
176 (16.5)
(100)
13(14.2)
(14.8)
25 (7.4) ↘
↗
↗
Human resources
management Note: ↗=The 4 1 (11.4)
(2.9)
increasing trend over 9 3 (14.8)
(4.9)
time; ↘=The 12 7 (15.0)
(8.8)
decreasing trend over25
11 (14.2)
(6.3)
time. ↗
↗
Total Policy evaluation
Financial management 35Note:
(100) ↗=The increasing
52 (14.3)
(5.7)
61 trend over
(100) 12
10 (19.7)
time;
(16.4) ↘=The
80 (100) 12
14 (15.0)
decreasing
(17.5) trend over
176 29
26
(100) (16.5)
time.
(14.8) ↘
↗
Human resources management 2 (5.7)
41(11.4) 10 (16.4)
93(14.8) 14 (17.5)
127 (15.0) 26
25 (14.8)
(14.2) ↗
↗
Organization
Total management 35 (2.9)
(100) 61 (4.9)
(100) 80 (8.8)
(100) 11
176 (6.3)
(100) ↗
Total
Financial managementNote: % = The increasing
Meanwhile, 35
trend 2 (100)
over time;
another
(5.7) &10 61
= The
sub-category(100)
(16.4)decreasing
showing 80
14 a (100)
trend
growth
(17.5) time. 176
over trend is
26 (100) implementation,
policy
(14.8) ↗
Human resources management Note: Meanwhile,
↗=The 4 another
(11.4)
increasing sub-category
trend over 9 (14.8)
time; showing
↘=The 12 a growth
(15.0)
decreasing trend
trend is
25 policy
(14.2) implementation,
↗
Total whereas
Note:
whereas ↗=The
policy evaluation,
(100) trend which
increasing
policy35 over
61time; was↘=The
was
(100) growing 80in
decreasingthe
(100) trend over
the 2000s, over time.
somewhat
176 (100) decreased
time. in the
Financial management 2 evaluation,
(5.7) which
10 (16.4) growing 14 in(17.5) 2000s, somewhat
26 (14.8) decreased ↗in the
2010s and
↗=The 2020s.
2010sMeanwhile,
and 2020s. Other
Othertrendtrending
trending sub-categories
↘=The decreasing
sub-categories were organization management, human
Total Note: increasing
35 (100)another over
61time;
sub-category(100) showing 80were
(100)organization
trend over 176 management,
time.
(100) human
Meanwhile,
resources
resources management,
management, anotherand sub-category
and financial
financial showing aa growth
management
management growth
(Figure
(Figure
trend
trend
5).
5).
is
is policy
This
Thispolicy
is
is in
implementation,
implementation,
line
line with
with the
in decreased the in-
in-
whereas
Note:
whereas ↗=The
policy
policy evaluation,
increasing
evaluation,trend which
over
which was
time;
was ↘=The
growing
growing in
decreasing
in the
the 2000s,
trend
2000s, somewhat
over time.
somewhat decreased in
in the
the
crease
crease seen
seen in
Meanwhile,
in policy
policy implementation.
another sub-category
implementation. In
In other
showing
other words,
a growth
words, an
an increase
trend
increaseis in interest
policy
in in the appli-
implementation,
interest in the appli-
2010s
2010s
cation and
and
of 2020s.
policies Other
2020s.evaluation,
Other
in trending
trending
institutions sub-categories
sub-categories
diffused to were
were organization
organization management,
management, human
human
whereas
cation of policy
policies
Meanwhile,
resources management, in
another which
institutions diffused
sub-category
and financial to an
an increase
wasmanagement
growing
showing in
increase
a the
growth
in interest
2000s,
in trend
(Figure interest
5). is
This
toward
somewhat
toward
policy
is in
researching
decreased
researching in the
implementation,
line with the
resources
field management,
of public management. and financial
On the other management
hand, the(Figure fact that 5).there
This wasis in aline with the
decrease the in-
in-
in re-

Table 13. Sub-categories of agenda-setting [unit: no. of papers (%)].
Policy Making
1993–2000 2001–2010
of policies 2011–2020
[unit: no. of papers Total
and institutions2011–2020
2001–2010 (%)].
Total Remarks
Remarks
Policy-making Agenda-setting
Policy and Institutions 2210 (62.9)
(45.5)
1993–2000 227(36.1)
(31.8)
2001–2010 28 (35.0)
7 (25.0)
2011–2020 2472Total
(40.9)
(33.3) ↘
Remarks
Policy-making Policy formation 22112(2.9)
(54.5)
(62.9) 22513(8.2)
(59.1)
(36.1) 15
287 (8.8)
(53.6)
(35.0) 40 13(55.6)
72 (7.4)
(40.9) ↗
↘
Policy
Policy evaluation
implementation
Policy change 51(14.3)
(2.9)
- 125 2(19.7)
(8.2)
(9.1) 12 (15.0)
67 (21.4)
(8.8) 829
13 (16.5)
(7.4)
(11.1) ↘
↗
Policy evaluation 51 (14.3)
(2.9) 123 (4.9)
(19.7) 127 (8.8)
(15.0) 11 (16.5)
29 (6.3) ↗
↘
Total 22 (100) 22 (100) 28 (100) 72 (100)
Human resources
management 41(11.4)
(2.9) 93(14.8)
(4.9) 127 (15.0)
(8.8) 25
11 (14.2)
(6.3) ↗
↗ trend,
Note: % = The increasing trend over time; & = The decreasing trend over time; = The maintaining
Human resources management 42 (11.4)
(5.7) 10 (16.4)
9 (14.8) 14
12 (17.5)
(15.0) 26
25 (14.8)
(14.2) ↗
↗
although there are some changes over time.
Total
Financial management 35 (100)
2 (5.7) 61 (16.4)
10 (100) 80 (17.5)
14 (100) 176 (100)
26 (14.8) ↗
Total Note: ↗=The increasing
35 (100) trend over (100)↘=The decreasing
61time; 80 (100) trend over time.
176 (100)
Meanwhile, another sub-category showing a growth trend is policy implementation,
Note: ↗=The increasing trend over time; ↘=The decreasing trend over time.
whereas policy evaluation, whichsub-category
Meanwhile, another was growing in thea growth
showing 2000s, trend
somewhat
is policydecreased
implementation,in the
2010s and 2020s.
whereasOther trending
policy sub-categories
evaluation, which was were
growing organization
in the 2000s, management,
somewhat
Meanwhile, another sub-category showing a growth trend is policy implementation, decreased human
in the
2010s
resources management,and 2020s.
and Other trending
financial sub-categories
management were
(Figure organization
5). This is in management,
line
whereas policy evaluation, which was growing in the 2000s, somewhat decreased in the with the human
increase
seen in policyresources
andmanagement,
implementation.
2010s 2020s. Other In and financial
other
trending management
words, (Figure
an increase
sub-categories were in 5). This management,
interest
organization isinin the
line application
with human
the in-
crease seen in policy implementation. In other words, an increase in
of policies in institutions diffused to an increase in interest toward researching the field
resources management, and financial management (Figure 5). This interest
is in line in the
with appli-
the in-of
cation
crease of policies
seen in in
policyinstitutions diffused
implementation. In to an
other increase
words, in
an interest
increase toward
in researching
interest in the the
appli-
public management.
field
On management.
the other hand, the fact that there was atheredecrease in researchre- on
cationof
evaluation could ofpublic
be policies
an interpretation
Ondiffused
in institutions the othertohand,
that rigorous
the fact
anassessments
increase inthat
interest
hinder
was a researching
toward decrease in the
innovation.
search on evaluation could be an interpretation that rigorous assessments hinder innova-
field of public management. On the other hand, the fact that there was a decrease in re-
tion.
search on evaluation could be an interpretation that rigorous assessments hinder innova-
Policies and Institutions (No. of Papers) Policies and Institutions (%)
tion.
30 Policies and Institutions (No. of Papers) 28 70.0 62.9 Policies and Institutions (%)
60.0 Policy-making
25
30 22 70.0
22 28 62.9
50.0 Policy implementation
Policy-making
20
25 60.0
22 36.1 35.0
22 14 40.0
15 50.0 Policy evaluation
implementation
20 12 12 30.0 36.1 35.0
10 14
12 40.0
14.3 19.7 17.5 15.0 Organization management
10
15 5 Policy evaluation
12
9 712 20.0 16.4
4 30.0 11.4 15.0
5 5 14.8 17.5 Human resources management
10 2 5 10 12
7 10.0 5.7 14.3 8.2 19.7 15.0
8.8 Organization management
93 7 20.0 16.4 4.9
14 2.9
11.4 15.0
8.8
05 5 0.0 Financial management
21 1st 7 10.0 5.7
2.9 8.2 14.8 8.8
Human resources management
2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
1 (1993–2000) 3 2.9 4.9 8.8
0 (2001–2010) (2011–2020) 0.0 (1993–2000) (2001–2010) (2011–2020) Financial management
1 1st 2nd 3rd 2.9
1st 2nd 3rd
(a) Policies and institutions
(1993–2000) [unit: no.(2011–2020)
(2001–2010) of papers] (b) Policies and
(1993–2000) institutions [unit:
(2001–2010) %]
(2011–2020)
(a) Policies and institutionsFigure

[unit: no.
5.ofSub-categories
papers] of policies(b)and
Policies and institutions [unit: %]
institutions.
Figure 5. Sub-categories of policies and institutions.
Table 13 shows the findings for policy-making, which has the greatest representation
Table 13under
shows thethe findings for
policies policy-making, which has the greatest representation
Table 13 showsand institutions
the findings sector. The
for policy-making, sub-categories
which has theofgreatest
policy-making were
representation
under the policies and
agenda-setting, institutions
policy sector.
formulation, and The
policysub-categories
change. In of
general, policy-making
policy-making were
includes
under the policies and institutions sector. The sub-categories of policy-making were
agenda-setting, policy
agenda-setting formulation,
agenda-setting,and policy
policy and policy
formulation,
formulation, andbutchange. In
not change.
policy general,
policy change policy-making
[57–59].
In general, includes
For this paper,
policy-making how-
includes
agenda-settingever, policy
and change
policy
agenda-setting is viewed
andformulation,
policy to bebut
in connection
formulation, notnot
but policywith
policy policy [57–59].
change
change processes
[57–59].ForinFor
thepaper,
this past,
this and is
paper,
how-
part
however, policy of the
ever,change decision-making
is viewed
policy change process for new
to betoinbeconnection
is viewed agenda-setting
in connection with
withpolicy and policy
policy processes formulation
processes ininthethe past,
past, [60].
andand
is
is part of theAll
partofofthe agenda-setting,
decision-making
the decision-making policy
process formulation,
for new
process new and policy change
for agenda-setting
agenda-settingandandtopics
policy have
formulation
formulation [60].
[60].
All of the agenda-setting, policy formulation, and policy change topics havebeen
been included
included
All of the agenda-setting, policy formulation, and policy change topics have
under
under policy-making. policy-making.
It can be seen in the ratio of change in research related to policy-making that the NIS
in Korea is shifting from the take-off phase to the developmental stage. In the 1990s, the
ratio between agenda-setting and policy formulation was about 1:1, and there was no
research on policy change. After that, there was a decrease in the proportion of research
on agenda-setting, whereas the research ratio for policy formulation remained the same in
general (Figure 6).
Meanwhile, research on policy change, which rarely existed in the 1990s, gradually
increased toward 2020. Such a change signifies that there needs to be a shift in existing
policies, as Korea’s NIS is growing out of the foundational and take-off phases. In other
words, IS was shown to be in sync with the development of the NIS. As such, it could be
inferred that the 1990s focused on discovering new policy agendas to set the basis for the
NIS and ensure internal stability. However, there should be a shift from agenda-setting to
policy change for the sustainable development of the NIS.
Figure 6. Sub-categories of agenda-setting.
4.1.2. Actors of Innovation

Another category with regard to research on the process-based aspect of innovation is
actors. Similar to the findings under research scopes, the finding for actors showed a shift
in the IS trend from macroscopic research to microscopic research. This is supported by the
fact that research indicating the involvement of actors steadily increased. On the other hand,
research that did not indicate actors of innovation, such as research on the maintenance of
policies and institutions relating to NIS, decreased steadily (Table 14, Figure 7).
Table 14. Actors of the NIS [unit: no. of papers (%)].
Actors 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total

Individual 4 (5.9) 12 (5.6) 13 (5.2) 29 (5.4)
Enterprises 14 (20.6) 47 (22.0) 78 (31.1) 139 (26.1)
Universities 4 (5.9) 9 (4.2) 6 (2.4) 19 (3.6)
Public research institutes 6 (8.8) 24 (11.2) 36 (14.3) 66 (12.4)
Multiple actors 2 (2.9) 14 (6.5) 11 (4.4) 27 (5.1)
Multiple countries - 5 (2.3) 3 (1.2) 8 (1.5)
Non-actors 38 (55.9) 103 (48.1) 104 (41.4) 245 (46.0)
Total 68 (100) 214 (100) 251 (100) 533 (100)
Figure 7. Actors of the NIS.
In Figure 7, research on enterprises continually increased. It suggests that innovation

in the private sector is considered more significant than innovation in the public sector.
Regardless, it can be interpreted that there is no decrease in research on public research
institutes. Because of its long history, a role-change for public research led to ongoing
discussions. Public research institutes were forced to change the role given to them when
Korea was focused on innovation in order to catch up with developed countries [61]. Even
though the change was subtle, it could also be confirmed that there was an increase in
research that explicitly considered several actors at once. In order to study the connection
between the public sector and the private sector, the research mainly addressed the network
between enterprises and universities, and between enterprises and public research institutes.
However, the proportion of research on individuals and universities was meager, and
it continued to decrease, suggesting that interest was biased against innovation actors. In
particular, university-related research mainly focused on the establishment of universities
for human resource training and on diffusion and transfer of innovative achievements
generated in universities. As such, research was mainly on university establishment and
education until the second phase, but most of the research was on technology transfer and
commercialization in the third phase. Here, too, it can be seen that the research shifted
according to the development of the NIS in Korea. In the sense that securing outstanding
human resources in science and technology was essential for the NIS to advance, research
on university systems would have been necessary from the take-off phase to the early stage
of the developmental phase. Then, as the developmental phase of the NIS continued, the
interest of research shifted to sharing the innovative achievements of universities with
other actors, and diffusing the achievements to the national system.
4.2. Content-Based Aspect of Innovation

4.2.1. Subsystems of the NIS
In the next part, IS was addressed and for this, IS was classified into different levels of
Sustainability 2022, 14,innovation systems:
x FOR PEER REVIEW NIS, RIS, and SIS (Table 15). 14 of 25

Table 15. Subsystems of NIS [unit: no. of papers (%)].
Subsystems of Policy
NIS and Institutions 1993–2000 2001–2010
1993–2000 of policies 2011–2020
and institutions
2001–2010 Total
[unit: no. of papers
2011–2020 (%)].
Total Remarks
Remarks
Policy-making
National Innovation
PolicySystem (NIS)
and Institutions 22 (62.9)
48 (70.6)
1993–2000 22 (36.1) 152 (60.6)
133 (62.1)2001–2010 28 (35.0) 333 (62.5)
2011–2020 72Total
(40.9) ↘
Remarks
Policy
Regional Innovation implementation
Systems
Policy-making (RIS) 221 (2.9)
3 (4.4)
(62.9)9 (4.2) 22 5 (8.2) 7 (8.8)
(36.1) 12 (4.8)28 (35.0) 13 (40.9)
24 (4.5)
72 (7.4) ↗
↘
Policy
Sectoral Innovation evaluation
PolicySystems
implementation
(SIS) 51(14.3)
(2.9)72 (33.6) 125 (19.7)
17 (25.0) (8.2) 87 (34.7)127 (15.0)
(8.8) 29
13(16.5)
176 (33.0) (7.4) ↘
↗
Policy evaluation 51 (14.3)
(2.9) 123 (4.9)
(19.7) 7 (8.8)
12 (15.0) 11 (16.5)
29 (6.3) ↗
↘
Total 68 (100)
214 (100) 251 (100) 533 (100)
Human resources
management 41(11.4)
(2.9) 93(14.8)
(4.9) 127 (15.0)
(8.8) 25
11(14.2)
(6.3) ↗
↗
Financial Note: % = The increasing trend
management over time; &
2 (11.4)
(5.7) 10 =(16.4)
The decreasing
14 trend
(17.5) over time;
26 = The maintaining
(14.8) ↗ trend,
Human resources management 4
although there are some changes over time. 9 (14.8) 12 (15.0) 25 (14.2) ↗
Total
Financial management 35 (100)
2 (5.7) 61 (16.4)
10 (100) 80 (17.5)
14 (100) 176 (100)
26 (14.8) ↗
Total Note: ↗=The increasing
35 (100) trend over (100)↘=The decreasing
61time; 80 (100) trend over176time.
(100)
Over the entire period, the proportion of research on the NIS was significantly more
Note: ↗=The increasing trend over time; ↘=The decreasing trend over time.
than the otherMeanwhile, two systems. another It sub-category
gradually decreased showing a growth over time, trend is whereas the percentage
policy implementation,
of researchwhereas SIS policy
on Meanwhile,graduallyevaluation,
increased,which was
rapidlygrowing growing in the 2000s,
in terms
another sub-category showing a growth trend is policy implementation, somewhat
of its decreased
absolute in the
quantity
(Figure 8). whereas 2010s and
This canpolicy 2020s.
be seen Other trending
as a result
evaluation, which sub-categories
ofwasrecognizing
growing inthat were organization
processes
the 2000s, somewhatmanagement,
and decreased
characteristicshuman
in the of
innovationresources varyand
2010s management,
across
2020s. industrial and financial
Other trending and technologicalmanagement
sub-categories (Figure
sectors
were 5). This management,
[62].
organization is in line with human
During the early the in-
phase
crease
resources seenmanagement,
in policy implementation.
andKorea,financial In other words,
management an increase
(Figure 5). This inisinterest
in in
lineweak, the the
with appli-
in-the
of the development cation of
of
policies
the NIS in
in institutions
the
diffused
country’s
to an increase
industrial
in increase
base
interest toward
was researching
and
the
level of science crease seen in policy
and technology implementation.
development In other words,
was low. an
There in
was was interest
little research in the appli-
field
cationofofpublic
policies management.
in institutions Ondiffused
the othertohand, the fact
an increase inthat there
interest decrease inon
towarda researching re-SIS
the
relative to search the NIS on because
evaluation attention
could be was
an given
interpretation to policies
that and
rigorous
field of public management. On the other hand, the fact that there was a decrease in re-
institutions
assessments at
hinder the national
innova-
level to develop search the
tion. NIS. However,
on evaluation could be it an
could be inferred
interpretation thatthat
rigorousresearch on innovation
assessments systems
hinder innova-
Policies andinInstitutions
consideration (No. of of
Papers) each industry or sectorPolicies and Institutions
would increase (%) when the NIS entered into the
tion.
30 stable
Policies and developmental
Institutions (No. of Papers) 28 phase.70.0 In particular,
62.9 joint
Policies efforts among
and Institutions (%) enterprises, academia, and
Policy-making
25
30 22 research22institutes to28secure60.0 global62.9
70.0 competitiveness and maintain a stable position in the
50.0
20
25
22
information 22 and communications 60.0 sector, in which 36.1 Korea has 35.0
the lead, Policycould implementation
Policy-making
be viewed as
14 40.0
50.0 Policy evaluation
15
20 contributing 12 to increased 12 research
30.0
on SIS. This trend
36.1
will be discussed further in the next
implementation
14 40.0 19.7 35.0
17.5
10 12
10
15 5 section, by
12
9
examining the
712
industries
20.0 in
14.3 which SIS
16.4
has mainly been
15.0
15.0
Organization
studied. management
Policy evaluation
4 30.0 11.4
5 17.5
5
10 2 5 On 10 the other hand, 12
7 research
10.0
20.0
5.7 on14.3 RIS was8.2visibly 14.8
19.7 insignificant 15.0
8.8 compared
Human
Organization to
resources SIS. The
management
management
14 93 7 2.9
11.4 16.4 4.9 15.0
8.8
05
21 1st
emergence 5 of RIS can 7be understood
0.0
10.0 5.7
2.9
as a policy 8.2 to
14.8 overcome severe
8.8
economic
Financial
Human inequality
management
2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
1 (1993–2000)between 3 2.9 8.8
0 regions(2011–2020)
(2001–2010) when Western 0.0 societies
(1993–2000) fell (2001–2010)
2.9
into an
4.9 economic
(2011–2020) recession inmanagement
Financial the 1970s [63].
1 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
(a) Policies In
(1993–2000) and Korea,
institutions
(2001–2010) local
[unit: no.governments
of papers]
(2011–2020) were first established
(b) Policies
(1993–2000) and institutions
(2001–2010) in[unit:
1995,%] which led to the initiation
(2011–2020)
(a) Policies of
andregional
institutionsFigurescience
[unit: no. and technology
5.ofSub-categories
papers] policies.
of policies(b)and Policies andAs of 2021,
institutions
institutions. [unit:The
%] Fifth Comprehensive Plan
for the Promotion of Regional R&D (2018–2022) is currently under implementation. It
seems, however, Tablethat due to
13 shows thethe centralized
findings political which
for policy-making, culture hasand lack ofrepresentation
the greatest autonomy for
local governments underTable the in policies
Korea, andthe institutions
demand sector.
for The
research sub-categories
on RIS
13 shows the findings for policy-making, which has the greatest representation itself of policy-making
has not been high.were In
agenda-setting,
under the policies policy
andformulation,
institutionsand policyThe
sector. change. In general, of
sub-categories policy-making
policy-making includes
were
agenda-setting
agenda-setting,and policy
policy formulation,
formulation, andbut not change.
policy policy change [57–59].
In general, For this paper,
policy-making how-
includes
ever, policy change
agenda-setting is viewed
and policy to be in connection
formulation, withchange
but not policy policy [57–59].
processes
Forinthis
thepaper,
past, and
how-is
part of the decision-making process for new agenda-setting and policy formulation
ever, policy change is viewed to be in connection with policy processes in the past, and is [60].
All
partofofthe agenda-setting,
the decision-makingpolicy formulation,
process for new and policy change
agenda-setting and topics have
formulation [60].
fact, up to 2018, most local governments did not have their own institutions to establish
and promote innovation policies that took into consideration the realities of each region.
Instead, they had to rely on the organizations and projects of the central government [64]. It
can be inferred that these circumstances acted as hindrances, interfering with the expansion
of research related to RIS.
Figure 8. Subsystems of the NIS.
In addition, similar to countries such as the United States, Germany, Japan, the United
Kingdom, and France, which treat regional science and technology policies as part of
regional development policies, it can be deduced that RIS-related research in Korea is
also being treated as part of regional development strategies [64,65]. However, various
regions would ultimately want to take charge of their own innovation policies, and it is
expected that interest in RIS will increase, with the goal of strengthening regional innovative
capacities through comprehensive plans for the promotion of regional R&D.
4.2.2. Applications
According to Ahn [35] (pp. 162–164), the role of SIS is to explain, from the perspective
of a system, differences in development among technologies or industries within a country.
As such, it mainly discusses the characteristics of technological innovation in a relevant sec-
tor, and interactions among actors for the development of a particular industry. Therefore,
implications can be drawn by classifying SIS-related research by industry or technology.
In Table 16, IS categories were classified based on the application sectors of SIS. First,
under industries, it was noticed that most of the research was related to information and
communications, reflecting the significant development of the information and communica-
tions industry in Korea. Next, even though electronics and telecommunications accounted
for half of the entire SIS-related research for a while, its ratio dropped in the 2010s (Figure 9).
This might reflect recent changes in Korea’s electronics and telecommunications industries,
in which attempts are being made to shift away from stagnant growth and bias toward
the sector, turning to other industries such as biotechnology. Research on vehicles and
transportation equipment increased significantly during this period. This resulted from an
increase in research on technologies that graft information and communications to other
technologies, as seen in autonomous vehicles. Moreover, there is also an increase in research
on services and medicine.
In Figure 9, the research proportions of the industry as a whole and of manufacturing
as a whole were also relatively high. Research in these fields provides implications to
sub-sectors by understanding differences between industries or characteristics identified
with industry groups. It also analyzes the factors of each sector, and reveals their impact
on sectors. In the case of a developing country with a weak economic basis, it is common
to focus on a particular industry in the starting stage of an NIS [66,67]. Then, when the
industrial basis has become secure to some extent, the country seeks industrial diversifica-
tion that leads to economic growth. As such, the need to understand the current status and
characteristics of various industrial sectors can be seen as a reflection of the research focus
of SIS.
Table 16. Application sectors of SIS [unit: no. of papers (%)].
Application 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total

Industries 16 (94.1) 69 (95.8) 74 (85.1) 159 (90.3)
Industry as a whole 1 (5.9) 8 (11.1) 9 (10.3) 18 (10.2)
Manufacturing as a whole 1 (5.9) 6 (8.3) 10 (11.5) 17 (9.7)
Manufacturing (metal/non-metal) 1 (5.9) 3 (4.2) 2 (2.3) 6 (3.4)
Manufacturing (medical equipment) - 3 (4.2) 1 (1.1) 4 (2.3)
Manufacturing (medicine) 2 (11.8) 2 (2.8) 7 (8.0) 11 (6.3)
Manufacturing (vehicle/transportation equipment) 1 (5.9) 1 (1.4) 11 (12.6) 13 (7.4)
Manufacturing (electrics/machinery) 2 (11.8) 2 (2.8) 4 (4.6) 8 (4.5)
Manufacturing (electronics/telecommunications) 6 (35.3) 36 (50.0) 17 (19.5) 59 (33.5)
Manufacturing (chemical) - 1 (1.4) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.1)
Construction 1 (5.9) - - 1 (0.6)
Agriculture/forestry/fisheries 1 (5.9) 3 (4.2) 2 (2.3) 6 (3.4)
Arts/sports/leisure - 1 (1.4) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.1)
Services - 3 (4.2) 9 (10.3) 12 (6.8)
Public sector 1 (5.9) 3 (4.2) 13 (14.9) 16 (9.1)
Advancement of knowledge - - 2 (2.3) 2 (1.1)
Health - - 1 (1.1) 1 (0.6)
National defense - 1 (1.4) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.1)
Development of earth - 1 (1.4) - 1 (0.6)
Environment - - 1 (1.1) 1 (0.6)
Energy 1 (5.9) 1 (1.4) 8 (9.2) 10 (5.7)
Total (SIS) 17 (100) 72 (100) 87 (100) 176 (100)
Figure 9. Industrial sectors of SIS.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of an NIS, SIS includes not only research on industrial
sectors but also on public sectors, even though its proportion is very low. It seems only
natural that SIS primarily focuses on industry-related research instead of public sectors.
However, there has been a recent increase in research on public sectors. In particular, a
significant increase in energy-related research is an indication that all around the world,
energy issues are directly linked to national security, and have become one of the critical
issues being addressed.
4.2.3. Research Fields

Table 17 shows the findings on research fields focused on SIS, particularly centered
around science and technology. As explained earlier, research on IS covers both content-
based and process-based aspects of innovation. SIS is what stemmed from the innovation
system for the content-based aspect of innovation. However, according to the finding in
Table 17, about a quarter (25.6%) of the research listed here is not relevant to the field of
science and technology. This percentage includes industry as a whole and manufacturing
as a whole, which together make up about 20% of the industrial sectors in Table 16. In
addition, research related to actors, policies, and institutions of each industry has been
included here.
Table 17. Research fields of SIS [unit: no. of papers (%)].
Research Fields 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total

Science and technology 15 (88.2) 58 (80.6) 55 (63.2) 127 (72.7)
Nature (mathematics/physics/chemistry/earth science) - 3 (4.2) 2 (2.3) 4 (2.3)
Life 3 (17.6) 8 (11.1) 10 (11.5) 21 (11.9)
Agriculture/fishery/food 1 (5.9) 1 (1.4) 1 (1.1) 3 (1.7)
Health care - 2 (2.8) 8 (9.2) 10 (5.7)
Life science 2 (11.8) 5 (6.9) 1 (1.1) 8 (4.5)
Artifacts 12 (70.6) 47 (65.3) 43 (59.4) 102 (58.0)
Construction/transportation 1 (5.9) - - 1 (0.6)
Machinery 3 (17.6) 3 (4.2) 14 (16.1) 20 (11.4)
Energy/resources 1 (5.9) - 5 (5.7) 6 (3.4)
Nuclear power - 1 (1.4) 3 (3.4) 4 (2.3)
Materials 1 (5.9) 5 (6.9) 2 (2.3) 8 (4.5)
Electrics/electronics 2 (11.8) 4 (5.6) 6 (6.9) 12 (6.8)
Information/communications 4 (23.5) 33 (45.8) 12 (13.8) 49 (27.8)
Chemical engineering - 1 (1.4) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.1)
Humanities and social science - 1 (1.4) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.1)
Interdisciplinary - - 1 (1.1) 1 (0.6)
Not focused 2 (11.8) 13 (18.1) 30 (34.5) 45 (25.6)
Total (SIS) 17 (100) 72 (100) 87 (100) 176 (100)
As seen in Figure 10, the proportion of research not focused on a particular science or
technology gradually increases. This is because, in general, the operation of an innovation
system is determined by various factors, such as the subject, source, system, and policy of
innovation, even though the characteristics of science and technology undoubtedly play
a critical factor in determining the characteristics of an innovation system in a particular
industry [36]. In other words, it can be inferred that the stable development of the NIS in
Korea led to a recognition that other factors, in addition to science and technology-related
elements, are also important.
Figure 10. Research fields of SIS.
According to the findings, of all the sectors of science and technology which make up
about 73% of research in SIS, information and communications were researched the most.
This is likely because Korea is globally known for its competitiveness in electronics and
telecommunications. Among the list of application sectors in SIS, electronics and telecom-
munications was the most researched sector, and information and communications, which
can be considered the underlying technology of electronics and telecommunications, was
explored the most. Even though the industrial sector and the science and technology sector
were not precisely identical, when the percentages of information and communications
(27.8%) and electrics and electronics (6.8%) under Table 17 were added together, the total
percentage was very close to that of electronics and telecommunications (33.5%) in Table 16.
Changes in the research trend by period were not dissimilar (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Science and technology fields of SIS.
Another field with increased research is machinery (under artifacts), and its related
sectors of vehicles and transportation equipment and electrics and machinery show similar
percentages. Health care (under life) was another field on the rise since the 2000s. As
mentioned earlier, such trends appear to be consistent with the changes in industrial
diversification, due to the development of the NIS in Korea.
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to trace the past 30 years of IS in Korea from the
perspective of the NIS. We utilized a systematic review method, and organized the analysis
results in a classification system. In conclusion, IS has provided a knowledge base necessary
for developing the NIS in Korea. The findings from this study can be summarized in three
points as follows:
First, the research scope of IS shifted focus from building the NIS, the macroscopic
perspective, to implementing it, the microscopic perspective. IS rapidly moved its research
interest from research on policies and systems to research on technological innovation,
and the amount of research increased significantly. It was confirmed that research on the
promotion, deterrence, and source of innovation rose considerably, particularly in case
studies. In addition, research is increasing, not only on the establishment of policies and
institutions, but also on logical implementation and management of systems. Beginning
in the 2010s through 2020, research on policy change has expanded, recognizing the need
for a change in the existing NIS. Nevertheless, the attention on policy-making was still
significant overall, indicating that the focus of IS did not wholly step away from the
macroscopic perspective.
Second, there was an increased awareness of innovation actors in IS, particularly
enterprises reflecting the maturity of the NIS in Korea. Apparently stemming from that,
since the early 2000s there have been discussions that Korea should move from the era of
catch-up development to a new period, to surpass the countries ahead of it [68]. In the
2020s, it is accepted that public research cannot lead the NIS, and that the public sector
should transform into a role that supports other sectors.
Third, the industrial fields that SIS, as a subsystem of the NIS, was interested in also
changed with the industrial sectors that supported Korea’s economic growth over time. As
innovation policies and institutions sufficiently grew and transitioned through the phases
of foundation and take-off, their interest moved toward understanding and developing
innovation characteristics for each industry. For example, the main focus of SIS shifted
from the electronics and telecommunications industry, which is one of Korea’s highly
competitive industries, to other industries. It was noticeable that IS adequately reflected
the changes in major industries and sectors.
Based on these three findings, we propose four challenges for IS to further contribute
to improving the NIS in Korea. First, for the development of the NIS, it is necessary to
study more microscopic subjects. Macroscopic research defines directions and goals, while
microscopic research achieves a goal in line with guidance from the macroscopic research.
The sustainability of the NIS will be guaranteed only when macroscopic and microscopic
research are in balance, keeping pace with the development of the NIS.
Second, it is essential to study the interactions among various actors of the NIS, from
individuals to the state. It cannot be denied that enterprises are key actors in economic
growth. However, the role of each actor and the active interactions among them are more
emphasized in an NIS, and as the NIS evolves, changes in the roles and capabilities of
actors are essential factors [69]. As such, research should be further expanded to address
the changing and enhancing of actors’ roles and capabilities, as well as to address linking
of different functions and capabilities among actors.
Third, there is a severe need for attention to RIS, one of the subsystems under an NIS.
Korea’s economy and industries are heavily concentrated in the metropolitan area, causing
many issues. Those problems sometimes lead to calls for frugal innovation [70–72]. We
should make an effort to resolve this concern through regional innovation. Considering
that innovation capacity based on science and technology at the regional level is just as
important as at the national level, IS should pay more attention to RIS. The Fifth Compre-
hensive Plan for the Promotion of Regional R&D (2018–2022) is soon coming to an end.
Therefore, IS should be providing the knowledge base to build an effective RIS.
Lastly, IS in Korea tends to lean more toward practical research. We propose conduct-
ing more theoretical research. According to Dutrénit [69], the knowledge base needed for
latecomer countries to implement a catch-up strategy is invalid for converting to a leading
strategy. That implies that Korea, which has reached a turning point of economic develop-
ment, needs to equip itself with an advanced innovation system and a rich knowledge base
in order to move forward [73,74]. If IS cannot create and develop an independent theory
reflecting Korea’s distinct characteristics, it could hinder progress toward advanced inno-
vation. In advanced innovation, the goal, in other words the target, of imitation embedded
within the phrase “catch up” no longer exists. What this means is that the first task for
Korea to transition from catching up to being in the lead is to equip itself with the ability to
predict the future and set goals on its own. The first step to this would be the development
of an innovation theory that reflects Korea’s uniqueness and contextuality.
We can interpret from these findings, despite several limitations, that the fact that IS
in Korea is in sync with the development of the NIS is a positive sign that it has performed
its role relatively well over the years of its development. However, although innovation
has moved on to the microscopic sphere, IS still focused on macroscopic research. In other
words, IS did not entirely lead the development of the NIS in Korea.
This study has both methodological and analytical limitations. Our methodology used
two academic journals published in Korea, which did not allow us to conduct a bibliometric
analysis of the selected articles. It would be valuable for future research to utilize SCOPUS
or Web of Science and review the literature on NISs. In addition, the findings do not show
whether IS drove the development of the NIS or whether it simply followed suit. Future
research should develop a more detailed research design that can directly evaluate the
relationship between the developmental processes of the NIS and IS. Nonetheless, this
research is meaningful in analyzing the research trend of IS in Korea from the perspective
of the NIS, based on academic data.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.O. and C.-G.Y.; methodology, H.O.; software, H.O.;
validation, C.-G.Y.; formal analysis, H.O.; investigation, H.O.; resources, H.O.; data curation, H.O.;
writing—original draft preparation, H.O.; writing—review and editing, H.O. and C.-G.Y.; visual-
ization, H.O.; supervision, C.-G.Y.; project administration, C.-G.Y.; funding acquisition, C.-G.Y. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the ROK and the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5C2A02081304), and the Ministry of Science and ICT of
the ROK & KIRD in 2021.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: In early stages of this research, draft data was provided by National
Research Foundation of Korea (https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/main.kci (accessed on 12 March 2021)).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1. Freeman, C. Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness. Mimeo submitted to the OECD Ad hoc Group on
Science, Technology and Competitiveness. August 1982. Published as Freeman, C. Technological infrastructure and international
competitiveness. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2004, 13, 541–569. [CrossRef]
2. Lundvall, B.-A. National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning; Anthem Press: London, UK,
2010; originally 1992.
3. Nelson, R.; Rosenberg, N. Technical Innovation and National Systems. In National Innovation Systems—A Comparative Analysis;
Nelson, R., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA; Oxford, UK, 1993; pp. 3–21.
4. Sharif, N. Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept. Res. Policy 2006, 35, 745–766. [CrossRef]
5. Chaminade, C.; Lundvall, B.-A.; Haneef, S. Advanced Introduction to National Innovation Systems; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK;
Northampton, MA, USA, 2018.
6. Kim, L.S. National System of Industrial Innovation: Dynamics of capability Building in Korea. In National Innovation Systems—A
Comparative Analysis; Nelson, R., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA; Oxford, UK, 1993; pp. 357–383.
7. Fagerberg, J.; Verspagen, B. Innovation Studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 218–233.
[CrossRef]
8. Chung, S.Y. Joseph Schumpeter and Technological Innovations: The Major Contents of the First German Edition of pThe Theory
of Economic Developmenty and Its Implications for Modern Society. J. Korea Technol. Innov. Soc. 2020, 23, 181–207. [CrossRef]
9. Dosi, G. Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions
of Technical Change. Res. Policy 1982, 11, 147–162. [CrossRef]
10. Freeman, C. The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 2nd ed.; Frances Pinter: London, UK, 1982; 3rd ed.; Soete, L., Ed.; MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987.
11. Rosenberg, N. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1982.
12. Nelson, R.; Winter, S.G. In Search of Useful Theory of Innovation. Res. Policy 1977, 6, 36–77. [CrossRef]
13. Nelson, R.; Winter, S.G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1982.
14. Clark, N. The Political Economy of Science and Technology; Basil Blackwell Inc.: Oxford, UK, 1985.
15. Dosi, G.; Freeman, C.; Nelson, R.; Silverberg, G.; Soete, L. Technical Change and Economic Theory; Pinter Publishers: London, UK;
New York, NY, USA, 1988.
16. Martin, B.R. The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1219–1239. [CrossRef]
17. Fagerberg, J.; Fosaas, M.; Sapprasert, K. Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1132–1153. [CrossRef]
18. Fagerberg, J.; Martin, B.R.; Andersen, E.S. The Future of Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2013.
19. Lee, B.H.; Song, M.G.; Kim, N.S.; Lim, J.S.; Han, J.H. Trends and Challenges of Technological Innovation Studies in Korea as
seen through Journal of Technology Innovation. In Innovation Studies in Korea: Achievement and Challenges; STEPI, KOSIME, Eds.;
Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI): Sejong, Korea, 2017; pp. 16–49. (In Korean)
20. Kim, S.Y.; Lee, B.H. Keywork Network Analysis of Journal of Technology Innovation. In Innovation Studies in Korea: Achievement and
Challenges; STEPI and KOSIME, Ed.; Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI): Sejong, Korea, 2017; pp. 56–84. (In Korean)
21. Kim, E.M.; Yi, C.G. Research Trends and Knowledge Structure of Studies on Science and Technology Policy. J. Korea Technol. Innov.
Soc. 2018, 21, 33–63. (In Korean)
22. Oh, H.J.; Yi, C.G. The Structure of Interdisciplinarity in the Science and Technology Policy Studies in Korea from the Perspective
of Respective Researcher’s Disciplinary Background. J. Korea Technol. Innov. Soc. 2021, 24, 41–74. [CrossRef]
23. Godin, B. Innovation Studies—The Invention of a Specialty. Minerva 2012, 50, 397–421. [CrossRef]
24. Giusti, J.D.; Alberti, F.G.; Belfanti, F. Makers and clusters. Knowledge leaks in open innovation networks. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5,
20–28. [CrossRef]
25. Ruoslahti, H. Complexity in project co-creation of knowledge for innovation. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 228–235. [CrossRef]
26. Kang, D.; Jang, W.; Kim, Y.; Jeon, J. Comparing national innovation system among the USA, Japan, and Finland to improve Korean
deliberation organization for national science and technology policy. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 82. [CrossRef]
27. Lee, J.; Lee, K. Catching-up national innovations systems (NIS) in China and post-catching-up NIS in Korea and Taiwan: Verifying
the detour hypothesis and policy implications. Innov. Dev. 2021, 11, 1–25. [CrossRef]
28. Afzal, M.; Lawrey, R.; Gope, J. Understanding national innovation system (NIS) using porter’s diamond model (PDM) of
competitiveness in ASEAN-05. Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 2019, 29, 336–355. [CrossRef]
29. Ma, J. Developing Joint R&D Institutes between Chinese Universities and International Enterprises in China’s Innovation System:
A Case at Tsinghua University. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7133. [CrossRef]
30. Freeman, C. Systems of Innovations: Selected Essays in Evolutionary Economics; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2008.
31. Park, S.O. On the Evolutionary Development of Systemic Perspectives through the Interaction between Innovation Studies and
STS. Innov. Stud. 2013, 8, 33–54. (In Korean)
32. Danemark, B.; Elkstrom, M.; Karlsson, J.C. Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2002.
33. Flyvbjerg, B. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again; Translated by Steven Sampson;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.
34. Wallerstein, I.; Juma, C.; Keller, E.F.; Kocka, J.; Lecourt, D.; Mudimbe, V.Y.; Mushakoji, K.; Progogine, I.; Taylor, P.J.; Trouillot, M.-R.
Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences; Stanford University Press:
Stanford, CA, USA, 1996.
35. Ahn, D.S. Economics of Innovation: Evolutionary Economy, Bounded Rationality and National Innovation System; Acanet: Seoul, Korea,
2009. (In Korean)
36. Ku, Y.W.; Cho, S.B.; Min, W.K. The Evolution of the Systems of Innovation Approach: A Review of the Main Issues. J. Korea
Technol. Innov. Soc. 2012, 15, 225–241. (In Korean)
37. Freeman, C. Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lesson from Japan; Pinter Publishers: London, UK, 1987.
38. Patel, P.; Pavitt, K. National Innovation Systems: Why They are Important and How They Might be Measured and Compared.
Econ. Innov. New Technol. 1994, 3, 77–95. [CrossRef]
39. Metcalfe, S. The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy: Equilibrium and Evolutionary Perspectives. In Handbook of the
Economics of Innovation and Technological Change; Stoneman, P., Ed.; Blackwell: London, UK, 1995; pp. 409–512.
40. OECD. National Innovation Systems; OECD: Paris, France, 1997.
41. OECD. Managing National Innovation Systems; OECD: Paris, France, 1999.
42. Lee, K.R.; Song, W.J. Structure and Characteristics of National Innovation System in Korea. J. Technol. Innov. 1998, 6, 1–31. (In Korean)
43. Chung, S.Y. Technology & Management, 2nd ed.; Kyungmoon Publishers: Seoul, Korea, 2012. (In Korean)
44. Hong, H.D. Science and Technology Policy; Daeyoung Publishers: Seoul, Korea, 2016. (In Korean)
45. Yi, C.G.; Kwon, K.S.; Kim, E.M.; Oh, H.J.; Jeong, S.H. Reflection and Challenge for Science and Technology Policy Studies in
Korea. Asian J. Innov. Policy 2018, 7, 382–410. [CrossRef]
46. Martin, B.R. Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Sci. Public Policy 2016, 43, 432–450. [CrossRef]
47. Seol, S.S. Technological Innovation; Bobmunsa: Paju, Korea, 2011. (In Korean)
48. Lee, K.R. 10 years of innovation studies in Asia through the Asian Journal of Technology Innovation. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2014,
22, 168–184. [CrossRef]
49. Kim, E.S.; Bae, K.J.; Byun, J. The History and Evolution: A Big Data Analysis of the National Innovation Systems in South Korea.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1266. [CrossRef]
50. Namn, S.H.; Park, J.M.; Seol, S.S. Quantitative Analysis of Knowledge Flow—Technology Innovation Research in Korea. J. Korea
Technol. Innov. Soc. 2005, 8, 337–359. (In Korean)
51. Namn, S.H.; Seol, S.S. Coauthorship Analysis of Innovation Studies in Korea: A Social Network Perspective. J. Korea Technol.
Innov. Soc. 2007, 10, 605–628. (In Korean)
52. Needleman, I.G. A Guide to Systematic Reviews. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2002, 29, 6–9. [CrossRef]
53. Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT). 50 Years of Science and Technology in Korea—Part1. Development of Science and Technology by Era;
MSIT: Gwacheon, Korea, 2017. (In Korean)
54. Lee, J.Y. Bibliographic Author Coupling Analysis: A New Methodological Approach for Identifying Research Trends. J. Korean
Soc. Inf. Manag. 2008, 25, 173–190. (In Korean) [CrossRef]
55. Zhao, D.; Strontmann, A. Author bibliographic coupling—Another approach to citation-based author knowledge network
analysis. Proc. ASIST Annu. Meet. 2008, 45, 1–10. [CrossRef]
56. Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT). Korea’s National Science and Technology Standard Classification System; Revised in 2018; MSIT:
Sejong, Korea, 2018. (In Korean)
57. Howlett, M.; Ramesh, M.; Perl, M. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press:
Don Mills, ON, Canada, 2009.
58. Birkland, T.A. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making, 3rd ed.; M.E.Sharp: New York,
NY, USA, 2011.
59. Kang, G.B.; Kim, J.K.; Park, G.H.; Park, J.T. Policy Sciences; Daeyoung Publishers: Seoul, Korea, 2016. (In Korean)
60. Yoo, H. Policy Changes; Daeyoung Publishers: Seoul, Korea, 2009. (In Korea)
61. Jung, B.K. Lock-in and Government-funded Research Institutions’ Problem As a Transition Failure. Public Policy Rev. 2012, 26,
5–25. [CrossRef]
62. Malerba, F. Sectoral System of Innovation: Concept, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2004.
63. Hilpert, U. (Ed.) Regional Policy in the Process of Industrial Modernization. In Regional Innovation and Decentralization: High Tech
Industry and Government Policy; Routledge: London, UK, 1991.
64. Yoon, C.M. The Present Condition and Development Direction of Regional Science and Technology Policy Governance From the
Viewpoint of Decentralization. J. Law 2017, 28, 103–140. (In Korean)
65. Lee, J.H.; Jang, H.E. State-led to Regional-led: Paradigm Shifts and Characteristics of Regional Science & Technology Policy in
Japan. J. Korean Assoc. Reg. Geogr. 2020, 26, 409–423. (In Korean) [CrossRef]
66. Wilson, S.; Maharaj, C.S.; Maharaj, R. Formalizing the National Innovation System in a Developing Country. West Indian J. Eng.
2020, 42, 4–16.
67. Esmailzadeh, M.; Noori, S.; Aliahmadi, A.; Nouralizadeh, H.; Bogers, M. A functional analysis of technological innovation
systems in developing countries: An evaluation of Iran’s photovoltaic innovation system. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2049. [CrossRef]
68. Hwang, H.R.; Choung, J.Y.; Song, W.J. Post Catch-up Theory: Direction and Agenda. J. Technol. Innov. 2012, 20, 75–114. (In Korean)
69. Dutrenit, G. Building Technological Capabilities in Latecomer Firms: A Review Essay. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2004, 9, 209–241. [CrossRef]
70. López-Sánchez, J.Á.; Santos-Vijande, M.L. Key capabilities for frugal innovation in developed economies: Insights into the current
transition towards sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 191–207. [CrossRef]
71. Cai, Q.; Ying, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wu, W. Innovating with limited resources: The antecedents and consequences of frugal innovation.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5789. [CrossRef]
72. Haffar, M.; Ozcan, R.; Radulescu, M.; Isac, N.; Nassani, A.A. Hegemony of network capabilities, frugal innovation and innovation
strategies: The innovation performance perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2. [CrossRef]
73. Philipson, S. Sources of innovation: Consequences for knowledge production and transfer. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 50–58. [CrossRef]
74. Ode, E.; Ayavoo, R. The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices
and firm innovation. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 210–218. [CrossRef]

Development of Innovation Studies in Korea From The Perspective of The National Innovation System PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Development of Innovation Studies in Korea From The Perspective of The National Innovation System PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of Innovation Studies in Korea From The Perspective of The National Innovation System PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031752 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. National Innovation Systems

Table 1. National Innovation Systems: Definitions and Characteristics.

Researcher Definitions Characteristics

2.1.2. Elements and Framework

Figure 1. The framework of a national innovation system.

2.2. Innovation Studies

2.3. Existing Literature

Table 2. Studies on the knowledge structure of innovation studies.

Researcher Year Journal Subject

Researcher Year Journal Subject

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

3.1. Selecting Articles by the Review Protocol

Figure 2. Review protocol for selecting articles.

• Step 2. Papers and authors

Table 4. Research subjects [unit: no. of papers].

Journal Title 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–May 2020 Total

• Step 3. Publication scores calculation

Table 5. Publication scores and papers per selected author.

Publication Scores No. of Authors % Publication Papers No. of Authors %

Table 6. Papers of selected authors by year.

Year JTI J-KOTIS Year JTI J-KOTIS Year JTI J-KOTIS

3.2. Framework for Content Analysis

Table 7. Analytical framework.

diffusion/transfer. As for policies and institutions, they could be further sub-categorized

Table 8. Categories under the process-based aspect of innovation.

Actors refer to individuals or organizations directly involved in innovation, such

Table 9. Categories under the content-based aspect of innovation.

Application Manufacturing (chemical)

4. Analysis of Selected Papers from JTI and J-KOTIS

4.1. Process-Based Aspect of Innovation

Table 10. Research

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25

(a) Policies and institutionsFigure

Figure 6. Sub-categories of agenda-setting.

4.1.2. Actors of Innovation

Table 14. Actors of the NIS [unit: no. of papers (%)].

Actors 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total

Figure 7. Actors of the NIS.

In Figure 7, research on enterprises continually increased. It suggests that innovation

4.2. Content-Based Aspect of Innovation

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25

Figure 8. Subsystems of the NIS.

Table 16. Application sectors of SIS [unit: no. of papers (%)].

Application 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total

Figure 9. Industrial sectors of SIS.

4.2.3. Research Fields

Table 17. Research fields of SIS [unit: no. of papers (%)].

Research Fields 1993–2000 2001–2010 2011–2020 Total

Figure 10. Research fields of SIS.

Figure 11. Science and technology fields of SIS.

You might also like