If you’re talking about copycats reducing the distance they lag behind innovators, at a reduced cost relative to what the innovators invested into building that distance, those are good examples.
It’s hard to do country comparisons because of all the confounders. But for particular industries, it’s easy to find examples.
The Japanese automobile industry clearly outcompeted the US one during the late 80s and the 90s, for example. Or look at where all the semiconductors are produced.
This is not to say that being a copycat is better than being an innovator—just that the first-mover advantage sometimes is significant and sometimes is not.
On what basis do you consider the Japanese automobile industry not engaging in research and innovation?
For the data I can find Japan had in 1984 62k granted patents while the US had 67k Given that the US had roughly twice the population, Japan might have outcompeted the US because of more innovation.
On what basis do you consider the Japanese automobile industry not engaging in research and innovation?
You twist my words—I said nothing like this.
The Japanese cars gained market share in the US not because they were more technologically advanced. Their primary advantage was that they were more reliable, mostly as a function of better manufacturing practices.
As far as I remember it was more a function of the assembly workers tightening up the nuts with the correct torque and not dropping engine blocks on the floor before installing them. I am not sure better quality control counts as “higher sophistication” in this context.
Reducing the distance they lag behind by copy-catting is outcompeting—in the relative sense. Otherwise they wouldn’t catch up but fall further behind. That they didn’t start out at the same level could be considered more historical chance than missing ability.
If you’re talking about copycats reducing the distance they lag behind innovators, at a reduced cost relative to what the innovators invested into building that distance, those are good examples.
For outcompeting, no.
It’s hard to do country comparisons because of all the confounders. But for particular industries, it’s easy to find examples.
The Japanese automobile industry clearly outcompeted the US one during the late 80s and the 90s, for example. Or look at where all the semiconductors are produced.
This is not to say that being a copycat is better than being an innovator—just that the first-mover advantage sometimes is significant and sometimes is not.
On what basis do you consider the Japanese automobile industry not engaging in research and innovation?
For the data I can find Japan had in 1984 62k granted patents while the US had 67k Given that the US had roughly twice the population, Japan might have outcompeted the US because of more innovation.
You twist my words—I said nothing like this.
The Japanese cars gained market share in the US not because they were more technologically advanced. Their primary advantage was that they were more reliable, mostly as a function of better manufacturing practices.
One could consider that to be asign if higher sophistication.
As far as I remember it was more a function of the assembly workers tightening up the nuts with the correct torque and not dropping engine blocks on the floor before installing them. I am not sure better quality control counts as “higher sophistication” in this context.
Reducing the distance they lag behind by copy-catting is outcompeting—in the relative sense. Otherwise they wouldn’t catch up but fall further behind. That they didn’t start out at the same level could be considered more historical chance than missing ability.