Theme 1. Institutions and Innovation Systems

This theme draws on research that sees technological progress as path-dependent (Kenney & Von Burg, Reference Kenney and Von Burg1999; Ruttan, Reference Ruttan1997), predicted by inputs from basic scientific research (Fleming, Reference Fleming2001; Fleming & Sorenson, Reference Fleming and Sorenson2004), and hence, influenced by various institutions and innovation systems. Central issues within this theme are the governance of science and science-technology relationships (Drori, Jang, & Meyer, Reference Drori, Jang and Meyer2006; Fuller, Reference Fuller1999; Whitley & Gläser, Reference Whitley and Gläser2008), and conditions that enable innovators to appropriate rents on innovation by creating barriers to imitation, appropriation or value capture (Teece, Reference Teece1986).

The institutional view and the innovation systems approach are slightly different theoretically (Lundvall, Reference Lundvall1999). The institutional view considers the institutional setup as given and as an exogenous variable, whereas an innovation systems approach considers the interaction between the innovation-related institutional agents. The research questions under this theme have been addressed through various perspectives such as national innovation systems (Mowery, Reference Mowery1998; Nelson, Reference Nelson1993), regional innovation systems (Chung, Reference Chung2002; Cooke, Reference Cooke2002), and triple helix framework (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, Reference Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff2000; Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, Reference Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz1996).

This theme is represented in both countries by several keywords related to institutions and innovation systems (Table 3). Within this theme, the evolution of Chinese policies and institutions related to innovation and to the role of the government has been researched in several studies. For example, Liu, Simon, Sun, and Cao (Reference Liu, Simon, Sun and Cao2011) focus on how S&T and industrial policy-centered innovation strategy have become strengthened through a departure from a top-down approach driven by a single government agency, and also by broad-basing through financial, tax, and fiscal incentives. Gu (Reference Gu2009) analyzed the role of the government in the evolution of market institutions, technological and knowledge regimes. Various studies have investigated the contextual background of institutions in China, such as the impact of local governments and guanxi (Liu, Woywode, & Xing, Reference Liu, Woywode and Xing2012), variations in national objectives, and industrial and political environments affecting innovation policies (Anadón, Reference Anadón2012), and the nature of interactions between institutions (Chang & Shih, Reference Chang and Shih2004). The particularities of the Chinese institutional context also highlight the limitations that still need to be overcome to encourage an enterprising national innovation system, robust intellectual property rights regime, and developing talent for creativity and innovation (Cao, Simon, & Suttmeier, Reference Cao, Simon and Suttmeier2009). These considerations also foreground the pervasiveness of social capital in the Chinese context when compared to a market economy (Luk et al., Reference Luk, Yau, Sin, Alan, Chow and Lee2008), and of the complementarities between business groups and institutions (Wang, Yi, Kafouros, & Yan, Reference Wang, Yi, Kafouros and Yan2015).

Studies on India present a mixed picture of uniqueness and successes of Indian innovation efforts, as well as deep concerns. Among the antecedents are exogenous changes such as GATT and economic liberalization that have changed the profile of India's technology imports (Sikka, Reference Sikka1996) and TRIPs compliance that has favored innovation and export quantity but not value (Bouet, Reference Bouet2015). We find an absence of studies on institution-building, with the exception of one study on the challenges of venture capital development in the initial days (Pandey, Reference Pandey1998), and we suggest the need for more such studies to develop deeper historical and contextual understanding of innovation-related institution-building in the Indian context. Among the concerns raised about India's innovation capabilities are the lack of linkages between science and technology capabilities for development (Mouly & Sankaran, Reference Mouly and Sankaran1999), and challenges before India's innovation capacity at the national and regional level (Sharma, Nookala, & Sharma, Reference Sharma, Nookala and Sharma2012). Mytelka's (Reference Mytelka2006) study emphasizes the multiplicity of approaches to address the same concern (here bio/pharmaceutical innovation systems) and the interaction of different types of policies.

A few studies compare China and India. Vecchi, Della Piana, and Vivacqua (Reference Vecchi, Piana and Vivacqua2015) show that China far outperforms India on several measures of innovation, but also highlight interesting differences between the two countries in policy environments that tend to favor a conservative approach among Chinese businesses, but a more resourceful and creative approach among Indian counterparts. Plechero and Chaminade (Reference Plechero and Chaminade2013) analyze data on Chinese and Indian firms to present three routes to globalization of innovations from these firms; namely, global exploitation of innovation, global sourcing of technology, and global research collaboration. The research by Godinho and Ferreira (Reference Godinho and Ferreira2012) compares IPR data of the two countries to show that should present trends continue, they would be able to catch up with advance economies in the near future.

In terms of the sectors studied, the presence of agriculture (and not manufacturing) is surprising for China. For India, health care and related sectors are not unexpected, although the absence of IT and related areas is surprising. It is evident that studies generally seem to suggest more vigorous efforts underway in China in building institutions and innovation systems than in the case of India. Nevertheless, the studies also report limitations both in China and India. Further, the lack of studies on the subject in India is noteworthy. Overall, therefore, we suggest greater researcher interest in the causes and consequences of absence of institutions, or weakness of existing institutions and innovation systems in both China and India, but particularly for India.

As China and India develop economically, their historical legacies, political systems, large populations, demographic profile, environmental challenges, and pressure on natural resources are some issues that foreground the need for specific institutional responses to channelize technological innovations in predetermined directions. In this context, we suggest that inputs from literature on institutional voids is a potential avenue to explore, given the copious research in strategic management on the absence of institutions that are taken for granted in developed economies. This institutional voids stream has essentially examined how organizations respond to the absence of institutions that are supposed to facilitate business (Khanna & Palepu, Reference Khanna and Palepu2000, Reference Khanna and Palepu2006). Indeed, it has been noted that the institutional voids afford opportunity to organizations to change institutions (Mair & Marti, Reference Mair and Marti2009; Mair, Martí, & Ventresca, Reference Mair, Martí and Ventresca2012). Further, business groups have been studied as one organizational response to cope with institutional voids (Khanna & Palepu, Reference Khanna and Palepu2000). Yet, we note that the term ‘institutional void’ is absent in the list of keywords in our sample. Also, the term ‘business groups’ appears in the Chinese list, but not in the Indian list. In China and India, we also find that certain strategic industries like space, defense, and atomic energy have developed significant innovations like Mangalyaan and Chang'e 3. This calls for future research to understand how such innovations were made possible despite significant institutional voids. Hence, there is a strong case for examining the nature of institutional voids that influence innovations in China and India, and organizational and policy responses towards such institutional voids.

Theme 2. Technology Upgrading

Emerging economies have a strong incentive to upgrade their technological bases in order to compete with developed economies. In this regard, the role of absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, Reference Cohen and Levinthal1990) is considered crucial in the assimilation and application of the external knowledge. Empirical work on the subject has been largely restricted to commercial firms (Bertrand & Mol, Reference Bertrand and Mol2013; Stock, Greis, & Fischer, Reference Stock, Greis and Fischer2001; Tsai, Reference Tsai2001) and has implicated the role of R&D intensity in the creation of absorptive capacity. Because private sector investment in R&D in China and India is still less than that of developed economies (Press Trust of India, 2014; Yingqi, Reference Yingqi2015), other mechanisms to enhance absorptive capacity and catch-up merit investigation. In our sample, some interest on this theme is evident in the case of China (Clusters 1, and 13), while it appears to be under-researched in India (Cluster 4), represented by terms related to technology evolution, such as catch-up and absorptive capacity. The terms technology diffusion/dissemination/transfer, science/technology parks (China), and innovation systems (India) suggest some of the mechanisms studied.

The trajectory and evolution of technological catch-up are examined in multiple studies on China in our sample. Scholars have studied the role of technology assimilation (Srivastava & Wang, Reference Srivastava and Wang2014), new product development performance (Wang & Li-Ying, Reference Wang and Li-Ying2014), firm diversification (Wang, Ning, & Chen, Reference Wang, Ning and Chen2014) and innovation performance (Wang, Zhou, Ning, & Chen, Reference Wang, Zhou, Ning and Chen2015) in enabling inward technology licensing. Several moderators are implicated in these relationships, including the licensee firm's absorptive capacity and regional knowledge endowment (Wang & Li-Ying, Reference Wang and Li-Ying2014), licensee firm R&D expenditure and technological distance from licensor firm (Wang, Ning, et al., Reference Wang, Ning and Chen2014), technology complexity and generality (Wang, Zhou, & Li-Ying, Reference Wang, Zhou and Li-Ying2012), and external technological conditions relevant to the licensee firm (Wang, Zhou, Ning, & Chen, Reference Wang, Zhou, Ning and Chen2015). Variation in technology exchanges by geography (Wang, Pan, Ning, Li, & Chen, Reference Wang, Pan, Ning, Li and Chen2014) and by types of organizations such as importers, exporters, self-sustainers, active generalists, and isolationists (Wang, Pan, et al., Reference Wang, Pan, Ning, Li and Chen2014) suggests the need to understand the antecedents and outcomes of such patterns. The studies also indicate the impact of concurrent initiatives such as forward engineering, international mergers and acquisitions, and parallel learning (Lee, Jee, & Eun, Reference Lee, Jee and Eun2011), technology trading markets, knowledge spillovers to R&D consortia, and government promotions (Mu & Lee, Reference Mu and Lee2005). They also highlight the uniqueness of the Chinese approach that differentiates it from predecessors such as Taiwan and Korea (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Jee and Eun2011). Research also points to the emerging favorable ecosystem for technology transfers to China from Western multinationals. These include stronger intellectual property protection regimes (De Meyer, Reference De Meyer2001; Gross, Reference Gross2013; Hsu, Wang, & Wu, Reference Hsu, Wang and Wu2013), university-industry linkages and technology transfers (Gross, Reference Gross2013), a rapidly evolving financial support system (Gross, Reference Gross2013; Hsu et al., Reference Hsu, Wang and Wu2013), government preferences for latest technology (De Meyer, Reference De Meyer2001), and overcapacity in traditional turnkey manufacturing (De Meyer, Reference De Meyer2001).

Among the wide range of variables implicated in this research, the study by Schmiele (Reference Schmiele2013) stands out because of the mechanism it investigates; namely, the role of intellectual property infringement in technological upgrading. Based partly on data from German firms operating in China, it suggests that increased international R&D activities, R&D in countries with weak IP regimes, and export intensity in host countries with little innovation are some of the factors associated with IP infringement. The study also suggests that international R&D by foreign firms increases the chances of losing competitiveness to local competitors abroad, thereby hinting at off-shore R&D as an important conduit for technological evolution of local firms.

Among the comparatively fewer studies on India, Kristinsson and Rao (Reference Kristinsson and Rao2008) discuss India's unique approach to ‘interactive learning’ that favors learning and adaptation rather than imitation of foreign policies and institutions. Guennif and Ramani (Reference Guennif and Ramani2012) examine the success of the Indian pharmaceutical industry relative to Brazil's, although both started around the same time and from a similar base of lax intellectual property rights regimes, internal markets, and strong scientific manpower.

While the wide scope of these studies indicates vigorous researcher interest, we reiterate a point made above: namely, the need to understand the antecedents and outcomes of the patterns of technology improvement evident from studies on China. Further, we also suggest more investigations into the role of intellectual property (IP) infringement (Schmiele, Reference Schmiele2013). Further, the joint consideration of ‘catch-up’ and ‘intellectual property’ presents a particularly interesting and vexing question. Should emerging economies such as China and India have strong or weak IP regimes in order to catch up with developed economies? Literature has suggested that strong IP regimes motivate firms to invest in innovation (Pisano, Reference Pisano2006; Teece, Reference Teece1986). On the other hand, literature on technology denial also suggests that weak IP regimes might motivate firms to invest in moving up the value chain through imitation (Dosi, Marengo, & Pasquali, Reference Dosi, Marengo and Pasquali2006; Kumar, Reference Kumar2003). It has also been suggested that process patent protection (i.e. not product patents) in India has been influential in developing its generic drugs industry (Chittoor, Ray, Aulakh, & Sarkar, Reference Chittoor, Ray, Aulakh and Sarkar2008; Chittoor, Sarkar, Ray, & Aulakh, Reference Chittoor, Sarkar, Ray and Aulakh2009), which is world-class in terms of cost effectiveness. Hence, the link between intellectual property regimes and catch-up needs to be studied more intensely in Chinese and Indian contexts than is suggested from our sample.

Theme 3. International Linkages

Liberalization in China has been led by foreign direct investment (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Jee and Eun2011; Sun & Du, Reference Sun and Du2010). Similarly, India has also seen large inflows of foreign capital and technology since liberalization (Chakraborty & Basu, Reference Chakraborty and Basu2002; Feinberg & Majumdar, Reference Feinberg and Majumdar2001). As China and India opened up, international linkages between indigenous and foreign firms have become important sources of capital and technology. Consequently, international linkages as a theme within the clusters in our study is important.

The studies indicate several types of international linkages, and also the main challenges associated with sourcing technologies. To understand this theme better, we reorganized all the keywords in these clusters into four groups. The first group represents issues related to the broad strategic directions for international linkages: international technology sourcing, outsourcing/offshoring, internal collaboration, imports, internationalization, outsourcing/offshoring, cross-border ownership of inventions, and foreign direct investment. The second group involves the type of industries/sectors studied – high technology industry, emerging technology, small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs). The locations or geographies involved in international linkages, such as developing countries, emerging markets, the United Kingdom, or the United States, constitute the third group. Finally, the fourth group is about outcomes of linkages, such as spillover, capabilities, learning, and path-dependency/routines.

Several studies on China have explored the strategies and motivations driving international linkages of foreign MNCs (multinational corporations) and Chinese firms. Studies on foreign MNCs indicate a range of strategies in R&D investments in China – knowledge exploitation versus knowledge augmentation (Liu & Chen, Reference Liu and Chen2012), developing new markets versus enlarging existing ones (Chen & Reger, Reference Chen and Reger2006), protection of one's own IPR versus developing new competencies (Li & Xie, Reference Li and Xie2011), owning laboratories versus engaging in cooperative joint ventures (Li & Xie, Reference Li and Xie2011), transferring hardware versus transferring innovation skills (Lan & Young, Reference Lan and Young1996), and market coverage versus protection against competitive threats (Hu, Reference Hu2010). The influence of the local context is evident in the link between regional innovation systems and local networks (Liu & Chen, Reference Liu and Chen2012), and in the strength of intellectual property regimes and factor markets (Li & Xie, Reference Li and Xie2011) on firm innovation strategy. The impact of industry is evident in knowledge spillovers from foreign MNCs and local Chinese firms (Motohashi & Yuan, Reference Motohashi and Yuan2010), while FDI driven & indigenous innovation models is found to influence the path of technological innovations (Wong & Yap, Reference Wong and Yap2011).

In comparison, the number of studies investigating outflows of technology from China are fewer. Among the exceptions are the studies by Di Minin, Zhang, and Gammeltoft (Reference Di Minin, Zhang and Gammeltoft2012) and Nepelski & De Prato (Reference Nepelski and De Prato2014). The former study investigates Chinese companies’ R&D investments in Europe and points to differences between their processes and those by developed-country multinationals. Nepelski and De Prato (Reference Nepelski and De Prato2014) highlight the motivation of Chinese enterprises to acquire property rights over foreign inventions, linkages with firms in small and developing economies, and constraints from geographic distance in technology flows out of China.

In the Indian scenario, comparative case studies of Indian R&D subsidiaries of foreign firms indicate differences as well as similarities on a range of variables (Brem & Freitag, Reference Brem and Freitag2015). Successful identification and implementation of new business opportunities is facilitated by knowledge of the overall business context, the offshore context, and the process of internationalization, thereby emphasizing the need for cross-cultural integration and alignment of offshore operations with home country priorities (Angeli & Grimaldi, Reference Angeli and Grimaldi2010). Parida, Wincent, and Kohtamäki (Reference Parida, Wincent and Kohtamäki2013), through their comparative case study of two Swedish multinational companies, highlight the importance of ‘improvisational learning’ during various stages of establishing offshore R&D operations, while Bardhan and Kroll's (Reference Bardhan and Kroll2006) comparative study of Russian and Indian software industry highlights the importance of industry organizations and nonmarket state institutions in explaining structural differences in outsourcing. These few studies indicate a stress on case studies to develop conceptual understanding and indicate a potentially rich field to study the role of cross-cultural management as well as the relative roles of state and non-state actors in facilitating international linkages.

There are also studies that compare Indian and foreign firms. Valuation of R&D is higher in India when compared to the US or Europe, and it is much higher for Indian firms than foreign firms invested in India, although the difference is smaller in science-based industries (Chadha & Oriani, Reference Chadha and Oriani2010). Although average R&D levels have decreased, evidence is presented of rationalization and more efficiency of R&D spending, which rises faster with firm size and is directed toward assimilation of technology imports and toward support of exports (Kumar & Aggarwal, Reference Kumar and Aggarwal2005). Both studies (Chadha & Oriani, Reference Chadha and Oriani2010; Kumar & Aggarwal, Reference Kumar and Aggarwal2005) also highlight the different profile of R&D pursued by Indian firms and subsidiaries of foreign multinational enterprises. These studies indicate a need to investigate the specific approaches adopted by Indian firms as opposed to foreign subsidiaries to improve returns on R&D investments.

As mentioned above, this theme has seen extensive and diverse interest with regard to China. However, the sparse literature around India is a matter of concern, and suggests a fertile field for researchers. In addition, we would suggest one potential area of inquiry that has been overlooked – the flow of technology from China and India to other countries. As mentioned above, barring a few exceptions in studies on China (Di Minin et al., Reference Di Minin, Zhang and Gammeltoft2012; Nepelski & De Prato, Reference Nepelski and De Prato2014), studies on this aspect are lacking. Yet, in certain sectors, such as atomic energy, space exploration and defense, both countries have had robust technology development programs for several decades (Cao, Reference Cao2004; IANS, 2015; Indian National Science Academy, 2001). While these programs have largely been confined to domestic requirements, increasingly, both China and India are interested in exporting some of these technologies. Further, technologies related to commercial products coming out of China and India are becoming competitive globally. Some examples are electronics, and especially technologies related to mobile phones and consumer durables from China (Price, Reference Price2015), automobiles from China (Heilmann, Reference Heilmann2016) and India (Hutton, Reference Hutton2013), and drugs and pharmaceuticals from India (Chittoor & Ray, Reference Chittoor and Ray2007). Additionally, many multinational organizations have set up R&D facilities in these two countries to develop products and technologies for Chinese and Indian markets (Lamin & Livanis, Reference Lamin and Livanis2013; Li & Xie, Reference Li and Xie2011), and also for exports. In this context, the concept of reverse innovation (Govindarajan, Reference Govindarajan2012; Immelt, Govindarajan, & Trimble, Reference Immelt, Govindarajan and Trimble2009) foregrounds instances such as General Electric's ECG machine which was first adopted in emerging economies before being exported worldwide. Therefore, we foresee the possibility of very interesting research to understand the forms of technology outflows from China and India, and the social, cultural, and political mechanisms that are likely to ensure the acceptance of such technologies.

Theme 4. Connections and Innovation

Research on this theme, in general, has proceeded along several directions to examine the influence of different types of connections on innovation. These include knowledge spillovers between firms (Vanderwerf, Reference Vanderwerf1992), inter-firm alliances, collaborations and networks (Ahuja, Reference Ahuja2000; Kogut, Reference Kogut1988; Narula & Hagedoorn, Reference Narula and Hagedoorn1999), the role of users (von Hippel, Reference von Hippel1986) and open innovation (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, Reference Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke and West2006). The various aspects studied include information flows across firms (Podolny, Reference Podolny2001; Soh, Mahmood, & Mitchell, Reference Soh, Mahmood and Mitchell2004), diffusion of practices through imitation (Westphal, Seidel, & Stewart, Reference Westphal, Seidel and Stewart2001), joint problem-solving (Midgley, Morrison, & Roberts, Reference Midgley, Morrison and Roberts1992), increased specialization and division of labor (Saxenian, Reference Saxenian1991), the incentives for firms to collaborate (Arora & Gambardella, Reference Arora and Gambardella1990; Lai & Chang, Reference Lai and Chang2010; Zhang, Baden-Fuller, & Mangematin, Reference Zhang, Baden-Fuller and Mangematin2007), and the motivation of buyers and users to innovate (Franke & Shah, Reference Franke and Shah2003; Jeppesen & Frederiksen, Reference Jeppesen and Frederiksen2006; Lerner & Tirole, Reference Lerner and Tirole2002). Further, one perspective on this subject that has generated considerable research attention is that of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, Reference Nahapiet and Ghoshal1998; Tsai & Ghoshal, Reference Tsai and Ghoshal1998). The essential argument here is that the nature of connections between actors in a network, as well as the nature of networks themselves, influences important organizational outcomes such as innovations. Thus, weak and strong ties impact knowledge sharing differently (Hansen, Reference Hansen1999; Tiwana, Reference Tiwana2008).

Given the extent of research that has developed around collaborations, networks and innovation, there is considerable scope to expand research on this theme in the context of China and India. In our sample, clusters 11, and 12 (China) and 10 (India) include the following keywords: clusters, collaboration, culture, IT/ICT/ITES, knowledge diffusion/exchange/sharing/transfer, networks, and technological innovations. Together, they represent the linkage between knowledge sharing and innovation, and different types of connections such as networks and collaboration. The list suggests the limited spread of research on this subject in India when compared to China.

The studies on China indicate the importance of innovation networks in providing firms with competitive advantage (Zheng, Li, & Wu, Reference Zheng, Li and Wu2013). The roles of several mediators, moderators and contextual variables are also highlighted. These include the mediating influence of technological capability and relative bargaining power (Zheng et al., Reference Zheng, Li and Wu2013), the nature of regional innovation systems and the extent of networks of MNC subsidiaries within such systems (Liu & Chen, Reference Liu and Chen2012), and technological embeddedness and firm innovation strategies (Liu & Wu, Reference Liu and Wu2011). Leung's (Reference Leung2013) study stands apart by examining barriers to networks, a relatively less studied aspect. Interestingly, it is found that cross-cultural differences between Chinese researchers belonging to collectivist culture and Western counterparts having a more individualistic culture do not necessarily create hindrances (Niedergassel, Kanzler, Alvidrez, & Leker, Reference Niedergassel, Kanzler, Alvidrez and Leker2011), and suggest a need to study the context of such exchanges that might lower the impact of cross-cultural differences. It is necessary to account for large sub-regional differences across China in understanding the relationship between academic collaborations with industry and firms’ innovative performance (Kafouros, Wang, Piperopoulos, & Zhang, Reference Kafouros, Wang, Piperopoulos and Zhang2015). Finally, a lesser number of studies have examined international linkages of university researchers. Thus, it is suggested that employing alumni from abroad doesn't necessarily result in increased intra-institutional collaborations or international linkages, but does increase publication impact factors (Li, Miao, & Yang, Reference Li, Miao and Yang2015). Increased participation in global scientific networks resulted in depressed international collaboration rates initially when China started participation in such networks, but the rates subsequently picked up with scientific advances in the country (Mehta, Herron, Motoyama, & Appelbaum, Reference Mehta, Herron, Motoyama and Appelbaum2012).

Clusters provide firms with opportunities to benefit from spillovers. Taking this argument further, it is seen in Indian studies that firm decisions to locate in single or multiple clusters are related to cluster density, requirement for creative talent, and firms’ founding in places other than origin of CEO (Dhandapani, Upadhyayula, & Karna, Reference Dhandapani, Upadhyayula and Karna2015). Madanmohan, Kumar, and Kumar's (Reference Madanmohan, Kumar and Kumar2004) comparative study between India and Indonesia indicate that firms’ ability to enhance their technological capabilities through technology imports is influenced by their R&D investments, availability of suitable technical talent, channels for technology transfer, government support, and supporting organizational culture. However, the study cautions that importing technology only to improve production or quality doesn't improve technological capabilities. Narayanan and Bhat (Reference Narayanan and Bhat2011) examine whether advantages such as ownership of tangible and intangible assets, location, human and natural resources, and ability to internally produce technologies explain international expansion of Indian MNCs. From their study of Indian software firms, they find that in-house R&D efforts, firm size, and export intensity are important in this regard.

In light of the aforementioned studies, an important subject that remains relatively less explored in the context of China and India is whether their particular cultural context might influence the nature of connections, and how this might affect innovations. While we could identify one study on how cross-cultural differences influence international collaborations (Niedergassel et al., Reference Niedergassel, Kanzler, Alvidrez and Leker2011) in China, we see considerable scope to pursue this theme further. In particular, we suggest more research into the cultural aspects driving inter-organizational connections, as previous studies have already hinted at the influence of national identities on firm HR policies (Ferner & Quintanilla, Reference Ferner and Quintanilla1998), and marketing (Keillor & Hult, Reference Keillor and Hult1999), and of religion influencing organizational actions and outcomes in a variety of international settings (Chan-Serafin, Brief, & George, Reference Chan-Serafin, Brief and George2013; Du, Reference Du2013; Parboteeah, Walter, & Block, Reference Parboteeah, Walter and Block2015). While India is a deeply religious country (Audretsch, Bönte, & Tamvada, Reference Audretsch, Bönte and Tamvada2013), religion is also an important, albeit not highlighted, facet of social life in China (Du, Reference Du2013; Du, Jian, Zeng, & Du, Reference Du, Jian, Zeng and Du2014). Further, although ‘guanxi’ as a topic has been well researched (Guo & Miller, Reference Guo and Miller2010; Park & Luo, Reference Park and Luo2001), as are extended family ties in China (Deng, Hofman, & Newman, Reference Deng, Hofman and Newman2012; Liang, Li, Yang, Lin, & Zheng, Reference Liang, Li, Yang, Lin and Zheng2012) and India (Ashwin, Krishnan, & George, Reference Ashwin, Krishnan and George2015; Singh & Gaur, Reference Singh and Gaur2013), their influence in either moderating or mediating the link between different types of connections and innovation outcomes is potentially an important line of research.

Theme 5. Management of Innovation

This theme connects with a long line of research on the management of innovation. Expectedly, this literature has been reviewed multiple times in the past on different aspects of technological innovation. These include product development (Brown & Eisenhardt, Reference Brown and Eisenhardt1995), success and failure of innovations (van der Panne, van Beers, & Kleinknecht, Reference van der Panne, van Beers and Kleinknecht2003), innovation in the manufacturing sector (Becheikh, Landry, & Amara, Reference Becheikh, Landry and Amara2006), and strategic management of innovation (Keupp et al., Reference Keupp, Palmié and Gassmann2012). The review by Ahuja, Lampert, and Tandon (Reference Ahuja, Lampert and Tandon2008) is remarkable in terms of its comprehensiveness. Schumpeter's (Reference Schumpeter1942) seminal work relating firm size and market structure to innovation has led to a core hypothesis that innovation increases more than proportionately with firm size, although later studies have provided inconclusive results, owing to the existence of positive and negative influences (Cohen & Levin, Reference Cohen, Levin, Schmalensee and Willig1989; Schumpeter, Reference Schumpeter1942). Another stream links firm diversification with a host of outcomes, including type of research (Hitt, Hoskisson, & Kim, Reference Hitt, Hoskisson and Kim1997; McEachern & Romeo, Reference McEachern and Romeo1978), benefits on R&D investments (McEachern & Romeo, Reference McEachern and Romeo1978), identification of new opportunities (Chen, Reference Chen1996), ease of knowledge transfers across firm boundaries because of shared organizational codes (Grant, Reference Grant1996), and reduced threats of opportunism (Williamson, Reference Williamson1975). The upper echelons approach (Hambrick & Mason, Reference Hambrick and Mason1984) to study the role of manager backgrounds on innovation (Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, Reference Hambrick, Cho and Chen1996; Smith & Tushman, Reference Smith and Tushman2005) is another important avenue for research.

Given the volume of research on the management of innovation spanning decades, it is not surprising that this theme has seen considerable work with respect to China (clusters 6, 8, 20, 21, 25), although the relative dearth of research interest on India (clusters 8 and 11) is equally remarkable. The keywords representing this theme are grouped as follows: (a) pharmaceutical industry, medicine, advanced manufacturing technology, manufacturing, developing country; (b) technological capabilities, competition/competitive advantage; (c) strategy, teamwork, R&D management, management control, corporate governance, ownership structure/type; (d) technological development, new opportunity/new product, innovation performance. The groups represent broadly the context/sectors studied by researchers, firm capabilities, management processes, and outcomes respectively. It is evident that the context of studies correspond largely to the important sectors that are internationally competitive in the two countries – manufacturing in China, and medicine/pharmaceuticals in India. Surprising omissions are the IT and automobile industries in India.

Studies of innovation strategies of Chinese firms during the transition period of the 1990s indicate the predominance of quality improvement initiatives and the influence of government initiatives by way of supporting high-tech manufacturing to move away from imported technology and equipment into developing indigenous R&D capabilities (Guan, Yam, Tang, & Lau, Reference Guan, Yam, Tang and Lau2009). Both innovative and imitative behavior are observed, leading to the inference that not all Chinese firms are equally innovative, especially when faced with imperfect protection of intellectual property rights, and a predominance of strategic cost innovation (Zheng & Wang, Reference Zheng and Wang2012). Arguing that ownership structure influences the environment-strategy relationship, Jiang, Waller, and Cai's (Reference Jiang, Waller and Cai2013) study suggests that ownership structure influences the impact of the source of innovation (i.e. internal R&D, partnerships, and university collaborations) and external contracting on innovation performance. The impact of different ownership structures, such as state-owned enterprises, private firms, joint ventures, business groups, and wholly owned foreign subsidiaries on innovation performance have been studied. The results vary, ranging from both significant and insignificant effects (Pyke, Farley, & Robb, Reference Pyke, Farley and Robb2002), positive influence of foreign, state and institutional ownership, negative effect of insider ownership, and no effect of concentrated ownership (Choi, Lee, & Williams, Reference Choi, Lee and Williams2011). The positive influence of business groups is affirmed in two studies (Choi et al., Reference Choi, Lee and Williams2011; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Yi, Kafouros and Yan2015), although the first study qualifies the relationship by indicating a significant effect only in situations where business groups are related to high-level government agencies. Studies on innovation teams are almost absent. Among the exceptions, we note one by He, Ding, and Yang (Reference He, Ding and Yang2014), which reports the impact of cognitive and affective conflict, and conflict management styles on team innovation outcomes.

Studies of Indian pharmaceutical companies suggest their ambidextrous capabilities to undertake exploration and exploitative R&D in response to changing IPR regime as a consequence to TRIPS agreement, and thereby respond to increased competitive pressures from MNCs (Brem & Freitag, Reference Brem and Freitag2015). Upadhyay, Sikka, and Abrol (Reference Upadhyay, Sikka and Abrol2009) examine various forms of government technology financing and their role in strengthening industry-R&D laboratories, while Sikka (Reference Sikka1998) argues for stronger linkages between corporate R&D, national laboratories, and technical institutes in light of the performance of R&D laboratories of Indian companies. It is also seen that for Indian pharmaceutical companies, quality of technical personnel directly influences market sales, and research intensive firms tend to be younger and more aggressive in learning (Ramani, Reference Ramani2002). Narayanan and Bhat's (Reference Narayanan and Bhat2009) study of the basic chemical industry suggests that the source of technology, namely in-house R&D, technology imports through machinery etc., and purchases of codified technology, are predicted by a range of variables such as firm size, age, level of firm integration, foreign ownership, and profitability. The need for cross-national studies of team work, and for Western companies to be sensitive to the Indian context, are highlighted in Brem and Freitag (Reference Brem and Freitag2015), in which they found differences in key aspects of R&D team and project management approaches across German and Indian teams of multinational companies operating R&D centers in India.

Despite the wide presence of work on this theme on China, and to a lesser extent on India, we suggest that there is scope to investigate the impact of the nature of the firm on innovation in Chinese and Indian contexts. In particular, the role of state-owned enterprises on innovation performance, although examined in two studies in our sample (Choi et al., Reference Choi, Lee and Williams2011; Pyke et al., Reference Pyke, Farley and Robb2002), point to the need for more studies. Also, the presence of large state owned enterprises in China and India, and large family business groups in India (Li, Sutherland, Ning, & Wang, Reference Li, Sutherland, Ning and Wang2014; Nair et al., Reference Nair, Guldiken, Fainshmidt and Pezeshkan2015; Singh & Gaur, Reference Singh and Gaur2013) are likely to confound the effects of firm size, scope, governance and upper echelons on innovation and are directions for future research. Large state owned enterprises operate in different conditions (such as monopolies or state protection) that are often not strongly linked to market forces (Wang, Wong, & Xia, Reference Wang, Wong and Xia2008), a key assumption in Schumpeter's (Reference Schumpeter1942) work. Yet, they are also often able to command large resources. Similarly, family-owned business groups may enjoy many of the benefits that have been identified in research on firm diversification and innovation (Ashwin et al., Reference Ashwin, Krishnan and George2015; Singh & Gaur, Reference Singh and Gaur2013). However, the characteristics of their top management, namely the extent of their professional training, and governance structures, may influence the diversification-innovation relationship which needs future exploration.

Theme 6. Universities and Innovation

In recent decades, the direct involvement of universities in research commercialization through different routes such as faculty-driven technology start-ups, collaborative ventures with industry, science parks, business incubation, etc. (Agrawal, Reference Agrawal2001; Hendry & Brown, Reference Hendry and Brown2006; Miller, Richard, & Arora, Reference Miller, Richard and Arora2011) has been underscored. Literature also notes that this development is accompanied by a different mode of doing scientific research, in which government, private industry, and universities are intertwined with each other in, what has been termed, as the ‘Triple Helix’ framework (Etzkowitz, Reference Etzkowitz2011; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, Reference Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff2000; Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt, & Terra, Reference Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt and Terra2000). Therefore, research to understand the nature and extent of university-industry interfaces for technology transfer and research commercialization is important, especially in the context of China and India, which aspire to be technological powerhouses.

In this context, we note from Tables 1 and 2 that research on this subject is still in its infancy in China, while the subject is unrepresented in any cluster in India. The limited research in China over clusters 8, 9, and 19 include the keywords universities/research institutes, research/academic collaboration, university-industry linkage, higher education reform, business, performance, and regions. This list suggests that this research has largely focused at broad-level issues such as higher education reform, and impact of university-industry linkages on regions. In this, the research finds resonance with studies on similar lines in other countries (Bramwell & Wolfe, Reference Bramwell and Wolfe2008; Doutriaux, Reference Doutriaux2003; Huggins, Reference Huggins2008).

Papers under this theme generally indicate the uneven progress of university-to-industry technology transfers in China. The studies suggest that such transfers haven't maintained momentum after an initial impetus during the 1980s and 1990s (Wu & Zhou, Reference Wu and Zhou2011). There are also discussions around faculty preference for scholarly work (Wu, Reference Wu2010), and challenges faced by university spin-offs initially (Kroll & Liefner, Reference Kroll and Liefner2008). A recent paper (Fisch, Block, & Sandner, Reference Fisch, Block and Sandner2016) notes that university patents have increased rapidly in quantity without corresponding improvement in quality, and highlights the effect of subsidies to promote research versus reducing patent application costs. However, many of the studies also highlight the continuous development of the ecosystem for university technology transfers. A study of Tsinghua University Science Park highlights the efficacy of its strategies in developing and transferring technologies (Zou & Zhao, Reference Zou and Zhao2014). Other studies suggest the institutional evolution of universities from rigid hierarchical forms to flexible and market-based mechanisms (Wu, Reference Wu2010; Wu & Zhou, Reference Wu and Zhou2011), and the influence of government restrictions on entrepreneurial spin-off performance (Kroll & Liefner, Reference Kroll and Liefner2008).

Yet it is also evident from the spread of keywords that even in Chinese studies, several promising lines of inquiry remain unexplored. One important theme that is missing is the nature of university-industry interfaces, and how this impacts the effectiveness of technology transfers. It is likely that the interfacing mechanism will be contingent upon various contextual variables, such as the nature of technological knowledge being transferred (Morandi, Reference Morandi2013; Niedergassel & Leker, Reference Niedergassel and Leker2011; Pries & Guild, Reference Pries and Guild2011), and technological competence of local industry (Gatignon, Tushman, Smith, & Anderson, Reference Gatignon, Tushman, Smith and Anderson2002; Tatikonda & Stock, Reference Tatikonda and Stock2003). Another important facet that needs to be studied is the role of universities’ internal contexts on university led innovations. These include the impact of university policies (Goldfarb & Henrekson, Reference Goldfarb and Henrekson2003), structural arrangements (Caldera & Debande, Reference Caldera and Debande2010; Chang, Yang, & Chen, Reference Chang, Yang and Chen2009), and organizational identity (Chatterjee & Sankaran, Reference Chatterjee and Sankaran2015; Lam, Reference Lam2010). Finally, research on universities also needs to investigate their role in developing technological capabilities (cf. Liefner & Schiller, Reference Liefner and Schiller2008), and ‘translating’ findings from basic research into applications that can be understood by industry practitioners (Woolf, Reference Woolf2008). Hence, there is a clear link between university research and absorptive capacity and catch-up that needs to be fleshed out in the context of China and India.

Theme 7. Entrepreneurship

Since Schumpeter's early work (Schumpeter, Reference Schumpeter1934, Reference Schumpeter and Swedberg2000), the innovator is closely identified with the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship deals with the identification, evaluation, and exploitation of new opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, Reference Shane and Venkataraman2000; Venkataraman, Reference Venkataraman and Katz1997). Given its importance as an engine for economic growth (Hessels & van Stel, Reference Hessels and van Stel2011), there is copious research to study various individual, firm, and institutional level variables on opportunity identification and resource mobilization for new ventures (Bhagavatula, Elfring, van Tilburg, & van de Bunt, Reference Bhagavatula, Elfring, van Tilburg and van de Bunt2010; Davidsson & Wiklund, Reference Davidsson and Wiklund2001; De Clercq, Danis, & Dakhli, Reference De Clercq, Danis and Dakhli2010). It is observed that entrepreneurship and innovation are complementary, and a combination of the two is essential for organizational success over its entire life cycle and not just at the starting stage (Zhao, Reference Zhao2005). Given that entrepreneurship is especially relevant for emerging economies like China and India, innovation through entrepreneurial ventures assumes special relevance owing to the impetus it offers for job growth and economic development (Monsen, Mahagaonkar, & Dienes, Reference Monsen, Mahagaonkar and Dienes2012; Thurik, Carree, Van Stel, & Audretsch, Reference Thurik, Carree, Van Stel and Audretsch2008).

In this context, our sample suggests that research on the link between entrepreneurship and innovation is severely constricted in China and India. From Tables 1 and 2, we note that entrepreneurship and innovation in new ventures has had very limited attention in China and India. In the case of China, the keyword entrepreneurship co-occurs with exploration and exploitation, transition economy and venture capital, while in the case of India, it co-occurs with technology diffusion/dissemination/transfer. This suggests that the limited discussion that has happened in China has been around the role of learning and financing of innovation in entrepreneurial ventures, while in the case of India it has largely been around knowledge transfer.

The studies on entrepreneurship in China reflect concerns with several topics. At the policy level, Huang, Audretsch, and Hweitt (Reference Huang, Audretsch and Hewitt2012) examine the impact of technology transfer policies aimed at reducing regional disparities by catalysing economic development, while White, Gao, and Zhang (Reference White, Gao and Zhang2005) look at China's system of new venture capital funding and its evolution from government dominated centralized system of the 1980s to the emergence of venture capital funds later. Two studies examine the impact of international connections. The study by Saxenian (Reference Saxenian2001) examined the development of technology ventures resulting from home bound engineers from the USA, while Yu and Si (Reference Yu and Si2012) investigated the relationship between R&D intensity, international initial public offering, and firm performance of entrepreneurial firms. One important aspect of entrepreneurship studies is reflected in two papers (Goxe, Reference Goxe2012; Kriz, Reference Kriz2010) that discuss the role of China's national culture and value systems on entrepreneurship.

For India, Subrahmanya (Reference Subrahmanya2013) found that innovation frequency and internal technical competence were associated with higher external technical support, while sales from innovation related products tend to be higher when firms are able to obtain external support and complement it with internal technical competence and are entrepreneurial. The study also found that sales increase of the SMEs was related to firm origin, age, and nature of innovations. Kumar and Subrahmanya (Reference Kumar and Subrahmanya2010) investigate the impact of MNC assistance to SMEs on their innovation and economic performance. They found that, while product and purchase process related assistance were predominant, the relationship nevertheless enhanced technological innovation and economic performance.

We point to three general directions to future research in this field: the individual entrepreneur, large firms, and innovation-led entrepreneurship, and new streams in entrepreneurship research. The first draws on studies in our sample that hint at the role of national culture on entrepreneurship (Goxe, Reference Goxe2012; Kriz, Reference Kriz2010). It has been pointed out that individual resources in innovation generation and in subsequent venture creation (Baum, Locke, & Smith, Reference Baum, Locke and Smith2001; Davidsson & Honig, Reference Davidsson and Honig2003; Miller, Grimes, Mcmullen, & Vogus, Reference Miller, Grimes, Mcmullen and Vogus2012), and innovation orientation of individuals (Wiklund, Patzelt, & Shepherd, Reference Wiklund, Patzelt and Shepherd2009) are important in linking entrepreneurship and innovation. However, it has also been suggested that the education systems in China and India, with their stress on cognitive development, and deeply rooted social preference for higher education (Witt & Redding, Reference Witt and Redding2013), are less suitable for entrepreneurship orientation (Raichaudhuri, Reference Raichaudhuri2005). Yet, evidence also suggests a surge of entrepreneurship in China and India (Sahasranamam & Sud, Reference Sahasranamam and Sud2016), and understanding this surge is an interesting angle for future research.

Further, there is a need to understand how innovations within large Chinese and Indian organizations are commercialized as new businesses (Subrahmanya, Reference Subrahmanya2013). In this regard, internal corporate venturing (Burgelman, Reference Burgelman1983), corporate entrepreneurship (Morris, Kuratko, & Covin, Reference Morris, Kuratko and Covin2010), and spin-offs (Iturriaga & Cruz, Reference Iturriaga and Cruz2008) have commanded considerable attention from researchers. However, innovation and new product development processes followed in entrepreneurial firms are potentially different from those seen in large firms (Bhave, Reference Bhave1994; Ray & Ray, Reference Ray and Ray2011). As discussed earlier, in Chinese and Indian contexts, most large firms are either state-owned or family-owned enterprises that tend to be conservative. To what extent this affects technology-led entrepreneurship, and how innovations are commercialized as new businesses, are potentially interesting subjects for future research.

Finally, India has a large presence of social enterprises championing the cause of people living in poverty (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, Reference Agrawal and Sahasranamam2016; Datta & Gailey, Reference Datta and Gailey2012; Intellicap, 2012; Sahasranamam & Ball, Reference Sahasranamam, Ball, Bals and Tate2016). Hence, it is necessary to explore the process of innovation and entrepreneurship in such enterprises.

Theme 8. Indigenous Innovation Forms

Only one cluster each in China and India can be identified as representing this theme. Cluster 4 for China contains the keywords diffusion, frugal/indigenous/low-cost innovation, international collaboration, and learning. For India, cluster 9 has only frugal/indigenous/low-cost innovation. Surprisingly and regrettably sparse, this theme nevertheless represents potentially an extremely rich and fertile ground for theory development that may break fresh ground in innovation literature.

Among studies on China, Lazonick (Reference Lazonick2004) discuss patterns of indigenous innovations by Chinese enterprises. Xie, Gao, Jiang, and Fey (Reference Xie, Gao, Jiang and Fey2015) discuss the distinctiveness of indigenous innovations, as emphasized in Chinese government initiatives, and classify them into three patterns – original, integrative, and re-innovation, and examine the connections between business-institutional social ties and learning intent. For India, Lim, Han, and Ito's (Reference Lim, Han and Ito2013) case study of the Tata Nano small car suggest the importance of various strategic decisions to overcome what they call the ‘deficiency problem’, and the potential for local firms to develop innovation capabilities by creating products for underserved markets in which firms in advanced countries have little experience. McMahon and Thorsteinsdóttir's (Reference McMahon and Thorsteinsdóttir2013) comparative study of regenerative medicine in Brazil, China, and India indicates the operation of processes hitherto unexamined in innovation literature. In particular, the study reveals the importance of non-firm actors, and the need to study a different set of dynamics through which innovations occur in these contexts.

We suggest three themes that require deeper researcher interest: emerging economy innovation paradigm, sustainability and green technologies, and traditional knowledge-based innovations. First, it has been pointed out that much of the innovation literature is based on ideas that mainly apply to western and affluent contexts (Ramachandran, Pant, & Pani, Reference Ramachandran, Pant and Pani2012; Viswanathan & Sridharan, Reference Viswanathan and Sridharan2012) that are aligned with global business interests (Nakata & Weidner, Reference Nakata and Weidner2012). Therefore, it is worthwhile to discuss to what extent innovation research in China and India is engaged in discovering locally relevant themes for research, and discovering indigenous methods for innovation and developing technologies. There is sufficient literature to suggest that it is essential to develop products and technologies for emerging markets accounting for their specific contexts, which are not necessarily cheaper versions of products developed for affluent markets (Ernst, Kahle, Dubiel, Prabhu, & Subramaniam, Reference Ernst, Kahle, Dubiel, Prabhu and Subramaniam2015; George, McGahan, & Prabhu, Reference George, McGahan and Prabhu2012; Prahalad & Mashelkar, Reference Prahalad and Mashelkar2010). Similarly, work on ‘grassroots’ innovations (National Innovation Foundation – India, 2013) suggests that motivations for innovation might not be material for many inventors. Hence, the process to develop such products and technologies is likely to be quite different from other innovations and may require new capabilities and technologies (Prahalad & Mashelkar, Reference Prahalad and Mashelkar2010). While China is fast growing beyond the conditions available in many emerging economies, these certainly prevail strongly in India. Anecdotal evidence suggests interesting and fresh approaches to these innovations and provides cases for interesting research. The limited research captured in our sample, namely frugal/indigenous/low-cost innovation, is predominantly concerned with this stream, and suggest the scope for more vigorous research.

Second, a surprisingly conspicuous omission in innovation research on China and India has to do with sustainability and green technologies. Both the countries together account for more than 30% of global greenhouse emissions (Mohan, Reference Mohan2015). As the two economies expand rapidly, and the stress on natural resources aggravate, the demand for sustainable technologies is bound to increase. As Nidumolu, Prahalad, and Rangaswami (Reference Nidumolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami2009) noted, sustainability can be a catalyst for innovation. Given that these problems are immediate in China and India, we note the absence of keywords such as sustainability, ecology, and green, and a need for an active research program to understand and inform policy on the management of innovation on sustainable and green technologies as a fruitful research area.

Third, several nations, including China and India, have had long ‘pre-scientific’ traditions that were different from Western science (Basalla, Reference Basalla1967). This traditional knowledge can be understood as that available with non-Western societies and aboriginal communities, and often concerned with environmental, health, natural resource usage, hunting, agriculture, but may also include more abstract and symbolic knowledge such as science, engineering, mathematics, philosophy, etc. (Hansen & VanFleet, Reference Hansen and VanFleet2003). Today there is thriving scholarship around the links between traditional knowledge and ecological sustainability (Green & Raygorodetsky, Reference Green and Raygorodetsky2010), development, especially among poor communities in non-Western societies (Briggs, Reference Briggs2005), and medicines based on traditional knowledge. The last subject is much debated (Reyes-García, Reference Reyes-García2010), and an active research interest has spawned the discipline of ethno pharmacology (Etkin & Elisabetsky, Reference Etkin and Elisabetsky2005; Reyes-García, Reference Reyes-García2010). China and India, with rich indigenous medicinal traditions spanning millennia and with a vast repository of documented knowledge, can contribute significant research in this subject (Chaturvedi, Kalam, Ladikas, Lifeng, & Srinivas, Reference Chaturvedi, Kalam, Ladikas, Lifeng and Srinivas2014). Yet, in our sample, keywords connected with traditional science and technologies are surprisingly omitted, perhaps reflecting a deeply rooted worldview on scholarship drawn on Western notions of management research. We see tremendous potential for research in China and India in unearthing traditional approaches to innovation, and thereby propose boldly new (or old?) and different approaches to innovation.