Background & Objectives
The increasing importance of knowledge as a new factor of production is a significant consequence of the process of globalisation (Drucker 1994; Evers 2003). Actionable knowledge is crucial to deal with very diverse issues such as industrial upgrading challenges in emerging markets or the ignorance of business leaders in formal organisations (Kogut and Zander 1992; Chan and Mauborgne 1997; Yli-Renko et al. 2001). The creation and effective governance of knowledge represents a key driver of sustainable knowledge economies in an era of rapid globalisation and latent knowledge conflicts (Toh 2002; Ernst 2003; Menkhoff, Evers and Chay eds. 2005). This represents new opportunities, challenges and threats for policy makers, leaders, managers and employees in both public and private sector organisations in Asia . Several broad research questions and issues are of interest:
- How do Asian businesses cope with and contribute to the further (and increasingly knowledge-centric) development of Asia ?
- Which role do governments and the state play in related transformation processes in terms of knowledge governance, technology and innovation management, e-governance, institutional arrangements and so forth so as to leverage on global knowledge flows and to ensure sustainable development?
- What happens in multi-cultural (diverse) knowledge contexts when members of different ethnic groups interact and collaborate (e.g. in knowledge-intensive teams) aimed at creating new knowledge and innovative products / services?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of Asia's network capitalism in the new global market place and emerging k-economy with its greater emphasis on cross-border knowledge flows, ideas, intellectual capital resources, ICT and IP protection?
- How fit are Asian countries for the knowledge economy?
- How effective are present knowledge governance systems in Asia in terms of managing knowledge traps and to ensure development progress? What is the role of public policy in leveraging on knowledge for development (K4D)?
- Where are the Asian role models who have succeeded in building up sustainable knowledge architectures? What can Asian societies learn from each other in this respect? What development lessons can be drawn from non-Asian models?
The conference initiative is a follow-up of three earlier international conference projects on Asian business issues conducted in Germany and Singapore (Menkhoff and Gerke 2002; Menkhoff, Pang and Evers eds. 2008).
A key objective is to bring different groups of scholars (representing various disciplines from management to area studies) together to advance both relevant conceptual frameworks and empirical knowledge about the specifics of sustainable knowledge governance in Asian business and society in a globalised world.
Challenges Ahead
“Opening up access to knowledge is a demand of global justice; it is both a human rights issue and a crucial factor in spurring economic development and technological innovation” (Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin, founder and director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School which will host the third Access to Knowledge Conference (A2K3) between September 8-10, 2008, in Geneva, Switzerland). http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6191.htm
Knowledge is deemed relevant for meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in three areas: education, internet access and water management (BMZ 2005). It has been obvious for a long time, however, that knowledge itself has become an essential development factor, if not the most important one of all. In a knowledge-based economy, the creation of wealth from immaterial production (services, computer-assisted production et cetera) exceeds that from material production (manufacturing). Levels of education are relatively high in a knowledge society, knowledge workers make up a large part of the workforce, and a considerable portion of gross domestic product is invested in education, research and development. The World Development Report 1998-99 has drawn attention to these facts (World Bank 1999).
According to conventional wisdom, knowledge can be imported quickly and at minimal transaction costs by use of the latest information technology. Governments in countries with few natural resources are thus tempted to try to leap into the post-industrial age. They might even succeed, were it not for the “knowledge trap”.
Knowledge is being created on an ever-increasing scale. It is estimated that the volume of knowledge at our disposal (including “junk knowledge”) is currently doubling every five years (Stehr 2001). However, the creation of new knowledge always goes along with the creation of new unknowns. The more one knows, the better one understands what one does not know. Anyone who wants to do relevant research, therefore, needs to know about the unknowns. They are important because they provide the stimuli to search for adequate answers.
The “knowledge trap” lies in the fact that data, information and knowledge are often taken over without any understanding of the corresponding unknowns. This is particularly so when the people acquiring such knowledge simply copy solutions. Failing to import an understanding of the unknowns consequently leads to bad investments and stagnation. Desired results are not achieved, and a “knowledge economy” will certainly not be created.
Since the late 1990s, it has been debated how to bridge the digital divide, both at national and the international levels. It mostly boils down to development strategies that supposedly allow countries to “catch up”: developing countries should emulate the developed knowledge societies, ensure computer literacy, technical infrastructures and facilities, and increase the number of higher education graduates in each age group. Conventional development strategies therefore include:
- interventions in primary and secondary education,
- the promotion of hardware and software infrastructures,
- the digitisation of governments (E-Government), and
- legal reforms (for instance, copyright protection).
In addition, there are also attempts to use modern information technology in various business sectors, for example, in agriculture.
Not a single one of these approaches takes into account the significance of what is unknown. This is problematic. In the initial stages, at least, the strategies mentioned will widen, rather than close, the gulf between established knowledge societies and the societies which are supposed to catch up. Users in poor countries have less and less understanding of how technologies function, and how they might be further developed to serve their interests.
Steps Forward
What is needed is a strategy that takes the relevance of unknowns into account. Such a strategy would have to be directed at several things, namely:
- knowledge hubs, competence centres and centres of excellence,
- knowledge clusters as “learning regions”,
- the transfer of knowledge through global production networks, and
- the use of comparative advantages of local knowledge.
| Knowledge Hubs |
Various developing countries have attempted to pursue strategies of localising knowledge. In the early 1980s, Indonesia declared four of its universities to be “centres of excellence”, and gave them particular financial support. The results were not convincing. Only isolated competence centres were established, and they were not adequately networked with other knowledge and production hubs. Knowledge clusters were not created. |
| Knowledge Clusters |
Silicon Valley near San Francisco and Silicon Plateau around Bangalore are examples of cluster formation, as is the knowledge region of Munich . There are also the first indications of cluster formation in the Multimedia Super Corridor in Malaysia . Economic research emphasises the close inter-connectedness of innovation, local economic growth and cluster formation (Porter 2000). “Clusters” are regional concentrations of companies, manufacturing subsidiaries, research institutes, universities and other institutions which have a bearing on knowledge. What is important is the diversity of the players involved. They may complement one another, be in competition, or cooperate. Our research in Singapore has also demonstrated the relevance of these structures (Menkhoff and Gerke eds. 2002; Menkhoff et al. 2005). |
| Global Production Networks |
The transfer of global knowledge into the local context always requires the use of local knowledge. This provides special opportunities for developing countries which open up to the world market in the course of globalisation, either through choice or because they are forced to do so. Globalisation of local knowledge and localisation of global knowledge are the prerequisites for the use of knowledge as an engine for growth. |
Policy-makers in both developing and emerging markets should consider giving greater thought to the development of knowledge clusters. For that to happen, they would have to give up their predominantly economy-oriented approach and adopt a more comprehensive one. After all, a complex environment with government institutions, scientific institutions and civil society organisations is necessary to structure local knowledge development successfully. Above all, however, development policy would have to begin dealing once again with higher education, research and related issues.
Expected Outcomes
Topics related to knowledge such as knowledge policy, access to knowledge, innovation systems, comparative advantages of local knowledge or learning clusters remain high on the agenda of policy-makers and business leaders in Asia-Pacific and elsewhere (Evers 2003; Pan ed. 2004; ADB 2007). Reflective, empirical-theoretical material on these issues is still rare. Therefore, the conference initiative is timely as it will advance both conceptual frameworks and empirical knowledge about the specifics of moving towards sustainable knowledge governance in Asian business and society. We expect that the published conference papers will be used as required reading material in undergraduate courses on Asian Business / Public Policy / Knowledge and Innovation Management (TIM) / K-Economy Development etc. They will also be useful for local, regional and international tertiary educational institutions offering courses such as Knowledge for Development, Learning Organisation, TIM etc, as well as for leaders in development.
References
Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2007) Moving Toward Knowledge-Based Economies. Technical Notes.
BMZ (2005) Der Beitrag Deutschlands zur Umsetzung der Millenniums-Entwicklungsziele. Bonn , Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Materialien No. 140.
Chan Kim, W. and Mauborgne, R. (1997) Value Innovation: The Strategic Logic of High Growth, Harvard Business Review , January-February, pp. 103-112 (Reprint Number: 97108).
Drucker, P.F. (1994) Postcapitalist Society. New York : Harper Business.
Evers, H.-D., Gerke, S. and Menkhoff, T. (2006) Little Understood Knowledge Trap, Development and Cooperation, 33, 6, pp. 246-247 (German version: “Unerkannte Wissensfalle”, Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit, 33, 6, pp.246-247).
Ernst, D. (2003) Placing the Networks on the Internet: Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge Creation in Developing Asia . Knowledge Creation in the Learning Economy,.B. A. Lundvall and K. Smith. Cheltenham , Edward Elgar.
Evers, H.-D. (2003) Transition towards a Knowledge Society: Indonesia and Malaysia in Comparative Perspective, Comparative Sociology 2, 2, pp. 355-373.
Evers, H.-D. and Gerke, S. (2005) Closing the Digital Divide: Southeast Asia 's Path towards a Knowledge Society. Working Paper No 1. Bonn , Centre for Development Research, University of Bonn.
http://plinks.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=2&sid=e9929df4-6019-424c-8b31-f26fed292df8%40sessionmgr3 " \l "bib33up#bib33up" \o "Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combination Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology, Organisation Science 3, pp. 383-397.
Menkhoff, T., Pang, E.F. and Evers, H.-D. (2008) The Power of Knowing – Studies of Chinese Business in Asia . Journal of Asian Studies (Special Issue), forthcoming.
Menkhoff, T., Evers, H.-D. and Chay, Y.W. eds. (2005) Governing and Managing Knowledge in Asia, Series on Innovation and Knowledge Management, Vol. 3, New Jersey : World Scientific Publishing.
Menkhoff, T. and Gerke, S. eds. (2002) Chinese Entrepreneurship and Asian Business Networks. Richmond : RoutledgeCurzon.
Menkhoff, T., Chay, Y.W. and Loh, B. (2004) Notes from an ‘Intelligent Island': Towards Strategic Knowledge Management in Singapore's Small Business Sector, International Quarterly for Asian Studies , Vol. 35, No. 1-2, 2004, pp. 85-99.
Pan Shan-Ling ed. (2004) Managing Strategic Enterprise Systems and e-Government Initiatives in Asia – A Casebook. New Jersey : World Scientific.
Porter, M. (2000) Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy." Economic Development Quarterly 14: 15-34.
Stehr, N. (2001) A World Made of Knowledge. Society 39(1): 89-92.
World Bank, 1999: World Development Report 1998-99: Knowledge for Development. New York , Oxford University Press.
Tsang, Eric W. K. (2002) Learning from Overseas Venturing Experience: The Case of Chinese Family Business, Journal of Business Venturing 17, pp. 21-40.
Zeleny, M. (2005) Knowledge of Enterprise : KM or Knowledge Technology? In: T. Menkhoff et al. (eds.), Governing and Managing Knowledge in Asia, Series on Innovation and Knowledge Management, Vol. 3, New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 23-59.
Toh, M. H. et al. (2002) Mapping Singapore 's Knowledge-Based Economy. Economic Survey of Singapore , Singapore , pp. 56-75.
World Bank (1999). Knowledge for Development: World Development Report 1998/99. New York : Oxford University Press.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. and Sapienza, H.J. (2001) Social Capital, Knowledge Acquisition, and Knowledge Exploitation in Young Technology-Based Firms, Strategic Management Journal 22, pp. 587-613.
