day3 nd innovation policy
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
1/73
Drs. Norman DytianquinTeaching Fellow
University of Maastricht
Innovation Policy
This project is funded by the European Union 1N. Dytianquin
UPM EU ACTIVE WEEK 21-25 Nov 2011Business
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
2/73
2N. Dytianquin
AGENDA
ECONOMICS OF INNOVATION POLICY
Solow growth model
Endogenous or New growth theory
Schumpeterian Growth theory
Evolutionary Growth theory
EU INNOVATION POLICY
Goals
Evolution
EU Innovation Scoreboard
Community Innovation Survey National systems of innovation
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
3/73
3N. Dytianquin
ECONOMICS OF INNOVATION POLICY
Three strands in the theory ofinnovation
Solow or neoclassical growth theory Endogenous or New growth theory Schumpeterian
Evolutionary theory
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
4/73
4N. Dytianquin
ECONOMICS OF INNOVATION POLICY-2
Solow growth model: Y = AK L
where Y is output, K and L are capital and labor inputs,respectively, A is a parameter representing technology, and and are the respective output elasticities of K and L
In the model, constant returns to scale is assumed, hence+ =1, so to prevent diminishing returns from occurring the A
parameter shifts the production function outward.
However, Solow assumed this technology as manna from
heaven or available for all countries to exploit.
Given access to this free technology, then there is aconvergence phenomenon where countries starting at lowinitial per capita GDPs will grow faster and catch-up withindustrial countries.
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
5/73
5N. Dytianquin
Solow-Swan Growth Model
Developed independently by Robert Solow (1924- ) and Trevor Swan(1918-1989) although model is more popularly known as Solow modelor neoclassical growth model.
Designed to show how growth in capital stock, growth in labor force,and advances in technology interact and affect a nations total output
Shown in the production function of Cobb-Douglas formY = (AL) K1-
Where A represents technological progress, K is capital stock and L is labor,and the superscripts and 1- indicate the output elasticities of capitaland labor respectively.
If we solve for growth rates:
g(Y) = g(A) + *g(L) + (1-)*g(K)
This is known as growth accounting. Growth can come from either growth ofinputs of K and L (accumulation) or technological progress (assimilation)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
6/73
6N. Dytianquin
Model basically shows:
Model is expressed in per capita terms, thus:Y/L = A f (K/L) or per capita output is
determined by capital per worker. Y/L isdenoted as y and K/L as k.
Model assumes diminishing returns to capitalas denoted by slope of production functiony=f(k)
Capital per worker is determined by 3 variables
Investment (savings) per worker
Population growth (denoted by n),increasing population decreases the levelof capital per worker, k.
Depreciation (denoted by d). Capital stockdeclines as it depreciates
Solow-Swan Growth Model
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
7/73
7N. Dytianquin
Solow-Swan Growth Model
If all parameters (savings rate (s),population growth (n), depreciation rate(d), output per worker (y) and capital perworker are all growing at same constantrate, how then can growth be sustainedin the long run?
Only through upward shift of theproduction function y=f(k) curve madepossible through technological progress.
Technological progress shifts productionfunction upward so output per worker
increases.
But where does this technology comefrom? To Solow, technology is mannafrom heaven or exogenous
y0
k0 k
A
0
Y* = Af(k)y*
y = Af(k)
k*
B
(n+d+ )ks
y0
k0 k
A
0
Y* = Af(k)y*
y = Af(k)
k*
B
(n+d+ )ks
y0
k0 k
A
0
Y* = Af(k)y*
y = Af(k)
k*
B
(n+d+ )ks
y0
k0 k
A
0
Y* = Af(k)y*
y = Af(k)
k*
B
(n+d+ )ks(n+d+ )ksWITH EXOGENOUS TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
8/73
8N. Dytianquin
Solow-Swan Growth Model
Thus in the steady state output per worker grows at the rate of thetechnological progress.
Thus with the introduction of technological progress, it is possible for aneconomy to experience sustained growth in per capita income (output) atrate of the technological progress. Thus, the farther an economy is from its
steady state value, the faster it grows given access to same technology.
The model predicts that given access to this free technology, poorcountries will catch up to the richer countries (absolute convergence) withend result of having same per capita GDPs
However growth rates have not been faster in developing countries than
in developed countries. Empirical evidence show tendency for countries having similar
characteristics to have convergence of their average incomes (conditionalconvergence).
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
9/73
9N. Dytianquin
Based on unrealistic assumptions
Full employment
Substitutability of capital and labor (not complementarity)
Diminishing returns to capital Homogeneity of capital (as opposed to embodied in assets
and hence lumpy) and labor
Exogenous technological progress
Solow-Swan Growth Model
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
10/73
10N. Dytianquin
NEW GROWTH THEORIES
Endogenous or New Growth Theory
Neoclassical growth model is not clear as to who produces andshoulders the cost of technology. If technology were mannafrom heaven, it assumes a public good character. Which means
it is obtainable at zero costs.
Endogenous or new growth theory introduces monopoly powerand spillover effects (positive externalities) as means ofappropriating technology.
We have Romer and Lucas models which show how technology
creates positive spillovers. Romer introduced R&D thatproduces innovation while Lucas introduced human capital(education, skills) that produces knowledge.
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
11/73
11N. Dytianquin
NEW GROWTH THEORY
Thus the new models emphasize the importance of
1Y A K x
a b a+ -=
investments in human capital (Lucas model) and
1Y A K H h
a a b-=
investments in R&D or knowledge (Romer model)
H is investments in human capital (education and training) which increases the
average human capital (h) and this creates a positive spillover in the workforce.
Represents knowledge (experience, learning by doing) which generates positive
externalities. In a later model he develops, represents intermediate goods which
embody blueprints or investments in R&D by the research sector,
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
12/73
12N. Dytianquin
Cricticisms of new growth theory are:
The new growth theory remains dependent on some of the
traditional neoclassical assumptions that are inappropriate for
developing countries
The empirical studies of the predictive value of endogenous
growth theories show limited results. Most empirical results
are used to test the neoclassical growth theory rather than
endogenous growth theory itself.
NEW GROWTH THEORY
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
13/73
13N. Dytianquin
SCHUMPETERIAN GROWTH
Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) saw
innovative entry by entrepreneurs as
the force that sustained long-term
economic growth
Introduced the concept ofcreative
destruction where competition for
monopoly profits leads to technological
progress old technologies are
replaced by new ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1schumpeter.jpg -
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
14/73
14N. Dytianquin
Types of innovation creating creative destruction
New markets or products
New equipment
New sources of labor and raw materials
New methods of organization and management
New methods of transportation and communication
New methods of marketing and advertising
New methods of inventory management
New financial instruments
SCHUMPETERIAN GROWTH
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
15/73
15N. Dytianquin
Schumpeter linked growth theory with theory of business
cycles.
When economy reaches a stationary state, the
entrepreneur disturbs this equilibrium by creating a newinnovation which is the cause of economic development.
Tying this up with Kondratieff cycles (50 years) or long
waves, a whole new invention or innovation changes
entire economic and productive structure.
SCHUMPETERIAN GROWTH
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
16/73
16N. Dytianquin
Like Marx, Schumpeter believed in the demise ofcapitalism. But unlike Marx who believes socialism willreplace capitalism, Schumpeter thought that capitalismwould crumble because of
Obsolescence of the entrepreneurial function:
innovation becomes routinized so entrepreneurs lose their function inthe economy
Destruction of political strata:
Big business will destroys small and medium sized firms and weakenposition of the industrial bourgeosie
Destruction of institutional frameworkGovernments play larger role in the economy so that institutions thatmake markets work will be replaced by state planning, governmentcontrol, nationalization of industries, welfare state, etc.
SCHUMPETER AND DEMISE OF CAPITALISM
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
17/73
17N. Dytianquin
1910The age of oil, automobile, air travel, petrochemicals and mass production
1971The age of information technology, knowledge and global telecommunications
Carlota Perez: A GREAT SURGE OF TECHNOLOGY EVERY HALF CENTURY
1771The Industrial Revolution in England
1830The age of railways, coal and the steam engine
1875The age of steel, electricity and transcontinental communications
20??The Age of biotechnology, nanotechnology and bioelectronics?
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
18/73
18N. Dytianquin
NETWORK OF TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
19/73
19N. Dytianquin
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Starts from Schumpeters ideas that growth emanatesfrom innovation or technological change
But adds on Darwinian theory of evolution where we findprinciple of natural selection (survival of the fittest)
Describes firms as displaying three principles
Search and selection (of routines and decision rules by the firm) Hereditary mechanism (organizational competence, knowhow,
skills are passed on to next generations through codification,imitation, take-overs, labor mobility or piracy)
Generation of variety or novelty (firms differentiate themselvesfrom competitors through product and process innovations)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
20/73
20N. Dytianquin
Evolutionary theory differs from other theories in following respects:
Multiplicity and uncertainty of outcomes could lead to disequilibrium
and/or multiple equilibria. In mainstream theory, the growth path was
linear.
Likelihood of inefficiency Path dependency (differences in initial conditions determine long-run
outcomes)
Possibility of lock-in solutions (inferior technology can be dominant:
economy can be locked into using an inferior technology, e.g.,
QWERTY keyboard) Evolutionary models were introduced by Nelson and Winter, Dosi et al.,
Silverberg-Verspagen, etc.
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
21/73
21N. Dytianquin
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
22/73
22N. Dytianquin
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
23/73
23N. Dytianquin
Growth path is characterized by instability or chaos as shown in thefollowing possibilities.
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
24/73
24N. Dytianquin
Nelson and Winter model
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
25/73
25N. Dytianquin
Economics of Positive Externalities
Innovation creates positive externalities such that social marginal benefitsexceed private marginal benefits. With externality, Q1 is produced where
PMC=PMB. Q2 would have been produced (PMC=SMB) if externality is paid
for.To internalize the positive externality, there is a need to SUBSIDIZE the
activity producing the positive externality according to Pigou.
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
26/73
26N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Policy
Economics of innovation policy
Goals of innovation policy
Evolution of EU innovation policy
EU Innovation Scoreboard and major findings
Community Innovation Survey
National systems of innovation
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
27/73
27N. Dytianquin
GOALS OF EU INNOVATION POLICY
To strengthen innovation capacity ofEuropean firms
To enhance effectiveness and coherence ofexisting innovation and technology transferinstruments
To promote rapid diffusion of new technologies
To disseminate knowledge concerninginnovation processes
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
28/73
28N. Dytianquin
EVOLUTION OF EU INNOVATION POLICY
EU innovation policy combines overall analysisprovided by a Communication entitled Innovation in a
Knowledge-Driven Economy in 2000 and the annuallypublished European Innovation Scoreboard which is
based on results of the Community Innovation Surveys
Earlier in 1995, Green Paper identified Europeanparadox of strong research performance but weakinnovation. This called for:
Large scale production for successful exploitation of innovation
Large-scale consumption to build scale economies
Clusters and industrial districts to generate high innovation rates
Tolerance of high degree of social and economic upheaval
Individualism as motivator of innovation
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
29/73
29N. Dytianquin
Includes innovation performance of EU-27 + Croatia, Turkey, Iceland,Norway, Switzerland, USA, Japan, Australia, Canada and israel
Innovation indicators expanded into 25 and arranged into 5 dimensions:
Innovation drivers
Knowledge creation
Innovation & entrepreneurship
Applications
Intellectual property
EU Innovation Scoreboard
EU innovation scoreboard provides overview of relative national
innovation performances
In 2005, EIS is based on 20 indicators which are then combined into a
Summary Innovation Index. This was expanded to 25 indicators in 2006.
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
30/73
30N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2009 (2)
Innovation Leaders
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, UK
Innovation Followers Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Slovenia
Moderate Innovators
Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland,Portugal, Slovakia, Spain
Catching-up
Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Romania, Serbia, Turkey
Note: In 2009, non-EU countries included in 2007 and 2008 EIS were excluded .These are Australia, Israel, USA, Canada, Japan.
Candidate countries were also included aside from EU-27.
Major Findings of EIS 20091. Country clusters according to innovation performance
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
31/73
31N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2009 (3)
Colour coding matches the
groups of countries
identified in Section 3.1:
green are the Innovation
leaders, yellow are theInnovation followers,
orange are the Moderate
innovators, blue are the
Catching-up countries.
Average annual growth
rates as calculated over a
five-year period. The
dotted lines show EU27performance and growth.
Figure 3: Convergence in innovation performance
http://www.proinno-europe.eu/page/31-innovation-performancehttp://www.proinno-europe.eu/page/31-innovation-performance -
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
32/73
32N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2009 (4)
2. EU innovation gap with USA and Japan
Figure 10 shows that the innovation performance of the US and Japan is well
above that of the EU27. The EU27-US gap has dropped significantlyup until
2007, but in the last 3 years the relative progress of the EU27 has slowed down.
The EU27-Japan gap has remained stable between 2005 and 2009 although
the gap has decreased up until 2008 but has increased again in 2009.
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
33/73
33N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2009 (5)
2. EU innovation gapwith USA and Japan
USA ahead in 11 out of 15
indicators
EU ahead in
S&E graduates employment in medium &
high-tech manufacturing
Community trademarks
knowledge-intensive services
Narrowing gap in
tertiary education public R&D expenditures
broadband subscriber
business R&D expenditures
Venture capital
Widening gap in
patents
Figure 11: EU27-US Comparison
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
34/73
34N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2009 (6)
Japan ahead in 12 out of 14
indicators
enablers
firm activities
outputs
EU ahead only in
Community trademarks
KIS employment
KIS exports
Narrowing gap in
S&E graduates
tertiary education broadband penetration
Public R&D expenditures
Widening gap in
Business R&D spending
PCT patents
Figure 12: EU27-Japan Comparison
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
35/73
35N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2009 (7)
Strong and stable lead to Brazil Declining lead to China
Strong but slowly declining lead to India Stable lead to Russia
Innovation comparison with the BRIC
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
36/73
36N. Dytianquin
3. Growth performance
The analysis of the EU27 growth rate in
innovation performance shows an averageannual growth rate of 1.8% over a five
year period. This improvement is
particularly due to Human resources
(2.3%), Finance and support (6.5%) and
Throughputs (3.8%) where the EU27 has
progressed most compared to 2005
(Figure 8). In Economic effects (0.9%)improvement has been small and in Firm
investments (-0.4%), Linkages &
entrepreneurship (-0.6%) and Innovators
(-1.3%) improvement has worsened.
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2009 (8)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
37/73
37N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2007 (9)
The growth in innovation performance hasbeen calculated for each country and for
the EU27 as a block using data over a five-
year period
The average growth rates for the 4
country groups show that there is
between group convergence with theInnovation followers growing at a faster
rate than the Innovation leaders, the
Moderate innovators growing faster than
the Innovation followers and the
Catching-up countries growing at a faster
rate than the Moderate innovators. The
overall process of catching up, where
countries with below average
performance have faster growth rates
than those with above average
performance, can also be observed at the
level of most individual countries.
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
38/73
38N. Dytianquin
EU Innovation Scoreboard 2007 (10)
Within the individual indicators, the EU27 is
showing relative strengths n Youth
education, Public R&D expenditures,
Broadband access, IT expenditures,
Knowledge-intensive services employment,Medium-high and high-tech manufacturing
exports, Knowledge-intensive services
exports and Sales of new-to-market
products .
The EU27 is showing relative weaknessesin S&E and SSH doctorate degrees, Life-
long learning, Innovative SMEs
collaborating with others, Technology
Balance of Payments flows and Resource
efficiency innovators.
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
39/73
39N. Dytianquin
In 1960s-1980s, individual member states mostly Scandinaviancountries, France, Germany, Netherlands undertook separateinnovation surveys
In 1992, Oslo Manual harmonized national methodologies andstandardized data collection on innovation activities of EU firms.
Eurostat developed a standard questionnaire that allows forinternational comparability. Questionnaire came to be known as CIS and contains inquiries about
types of innovation done by firms reasons for innovating sources of information for innovation
impact of innovation on firm performance obstacles to innovation expenditures on innovation government incentives and effectiveness in affecting innovation
Community Innovation Survey
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
40/73
40N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (2)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
41/73
41N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (3)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
42/73
42N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (4)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
43/73
43N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (5)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
44/73
44N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (6)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
45/73
45N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (7)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
46/73
46N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (8)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
47/73
47N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (9)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
48/73
48N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (10)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
49/73
49N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (11)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
50/73
50N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (12)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
51/73
51N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (13)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
52/73
52N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (14)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
53/73
53N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (15)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
54/73
54N. Dytianquin
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
55/73
55N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (16)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
56/73
56N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (17)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
57/73
57N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (18)
C S
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
58/73
58N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (19)
C i I i S (20)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
59/73
59N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (20)
C i I i S (21)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
60/73
60N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (21)
Community Innovation Survey (22)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
61/73
61N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (22)
C it I ti S (23)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
62/73
62N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (23)
C it I ti S (24)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
63/73
63N. Dytianquin
Community Innovation Survey (24)
N ti l S t f I ti
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
64/73
64N. Dytianquin
National Systems of Innovation
What is the national systems of innovation?Network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activitiesand interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies(Freeman, 1987)
Elements and relationships which interact in the production, diffusionand use of new and economically useful knowledge (Lundvall, 1992)
Set of institutions whose interactions determine the innovativeperformance of national firms (Nelson & Rosenberg, 1993)
Constituted by the institutions and economic structures affecting therate and direction of technological change in society (Edquist & Lundvall,1993)
National institutions, their incentive structures and their competences
that determine the rate and direction of technological learning (Patel &Pavitt, 1994)
Set of distinct institutions which jointly and individually contribute to thedevelopment and diffusion of new technologies and provides theframework within which governments form and implement policies toinfluence the innovation process (Metcalfe, 1995)
N ti l S t f I ti (2)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
65/73
65N. Dytianquin
National Systems of Innovation (2)
National S stems of Inno ation (3)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
66/73
66N. Dytianquin
National Systems of Innovation (3)
EU Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
67/73
67N. Dytianquin
In 2008, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) will be launched. It is the
first European initiative to integrate fully the three sides of the "Knowledge Triangle" (Higher
Education, Research, Business-Innovation) and will seek to stand out as a world-class
innovation-orientated reference model
Based on partnerships known as Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) highly
integrated public-private networks of universities, research organisations and businessesthe EIT's activities will be coordinated by a Governing Board (to be appointed end June 2008
along with possible headquarters) ensuring its strategic management
The mandate of the EIT are:
Serving EUs strategic priorities (7-year Strategic Innovation Agendas: first Agenda to be
submitted in 2011)
Connecting EU business and research (commercialize research findings)
Providing higher education (MAs and PhDs with EIT label and innovation partnerships)
Setting up incremental development path (phased introduction of KICs: slection fo first
KICs by end 2009)
Leverage for business (integrated knowledge transfer and networking)
EU Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
68/73
68N. Dytianquin
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
69/73
69N. Dytianquin
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
70/73
70N. Dytianquin
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
71/73
71N. Dytianquin
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
Sample Innovation Survey Questionnaire from Malaysia
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
72/73
72N. Dytianquin
p y Q y
MYEULINK
-
7/31/2019 Day3 ND Innovation Policy
73/73
MYEULINK
Thank you.