Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity volume 2, Article number: 22 (2016)
An Erratum to this article was published on 04 April 2017
We propose an international economic agenda to overcome the growth limits of capitalism that can be supported by the United Nations. Sustainable Environment based global goals should be added to sustainable economy. For this, we propose dynamic balance between three sub-economies such as open innovation, closed innovation, and social innovation sub-economy. For this, we propose to set up a UN community and a long range plan.
Dear Mr. Secretary General of the United Nations
At the Paris, nearly all the global leaders joined and agreed to build up new rules for sustainable development of mankind in 2015. In the OECD Ministerial Meeting at Daejeon, Korea 2015, the Declaration emphasizes connection and creative combination between Technology, and the markets in the direction of stimulating Open Innovation and Open Science as alternatives to mitigate asymmetry, foster economic growth, and reduce poverty spread out worldwide. Also, it is important to protect this world against terrorist attacks that are increased very rapidly. The UN sustainable summit requires a new regime, rule, and guideline for the sustainable development of global human society.
Certainly, these issues are related to conquering the growth limit of capitalism for which the Society of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (SOItmC, www.openinnovationtmc.org) was organized to achieve open connection and creative recombination between technology and markets.
We propose new international rule and agenda that can contribute to conquer the growth limit of capitalism as a practically operational and applicable policy for anti-terrorism, sustainable development, and co-wellbeing in this global economy era. Following are examples of 21 century global agenda for this purpose. We highly encourage to discuss “a global rule for the sustainable development of world economy” as soon as possible.
Revitalizing protection for building the ecosystem of the Open Innovation Sub Economy, centered on SMEs and Start-ups.
Institutional protection from big companies in the process of obtaining and maintaining patents, and realizing business model development (Laursen & Salter, 2006; Lee et al. 2010; Rhee et al. 2010
Securing talented employees in competition with big companies via stock options and other benefits
Improving financial credit systems of embracing entrepreneurs’ failures, abolishing security system, and strengthening crowd funding & technology security. (Bistrova et al. 2011)
Constructing quick mass-production connecting system through friendly M&As, and diversifying funding sources. (Jung et al., 2008; K. R. Lee, 1996; Lee et al. 2008; Suzuki & Kodama, 2004)
Revitalizing the construction of the social (open) Innovation Sub Economy System, centered on social enterprises
Activating donations to social innovative enterprises (Yun, 2015)
Strengthening tax benefits toward donations to social innovative enterprises(more than 75% of tax deduction)
Facilitating the introduction of free-of-charge rental system of public property toward social innovative enterprises of governmental and public domains (Choi, 2010; Witt, 2002)
Granting radical tax benefits toward social innovative enterprises in the stages of pre-settlement
Increasing unqualified supports for the evolutionary developments of social innovative enterprises into open innovation start-ups or SMEs (Gupta, 2011; Krishna, 1997; Yun, Jeong, et al. 2015)
Strengthening public regulations for constructing and maintaining of big companies’ sound Closed Innovation Sub Ecosystem.
Prohibiting strategic entering of big companies into the market fields of SMEs and Start-ups. (Cooke et al. 1997)(Yun, Won, et al. 2015)
Inducing mass-production connection and big companies’ fast entering into new industries via such amicable ways as capital investments, friendly M&As with SMEs and start-ups. (Kamo & Phillips, 1997; Kim & Park, 2006; López & Gamboa, 2013; K. Lee & Lim, 2001; Yoo et al. 2013)
Strengthening contributing roles of big companies to national or world economy, by increasing the basic tax rate on corporate non-investment capital, and by encouraging their positive employment, mass production, payment of taxes, and etc.
Preventing capital monopoly of big companies, which causes slow economy, through setting a global standard for imposing corporate taxes from big companies to more than standard, putting off retirement age, and restrictions on dismissal. (Hahm et al. 2013; Park et al. 2011)
We propose the three points to Dear Mr. Secretary General of the UN.
First, let us organize global committee to build up “global economy minimum rules to conquer the growth limits of capitalism” under UN and set up these rules until 2035.
Second, let us organize global research groups and communities to make fundamental documents for ‘global economy minimum rules to conquer the growth limits of capitalism” until 2017.
Third, let us make open access as the required rule for all academic journals, and a support system from UN, and let us motivate open innovation at global level at the starting policy to conquer the growth limits of capitalism by the UN.
Bistrova, J., Lace, N., & Peleckienė, V. (2011). The influence of capital structure on baltic corporate performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 12(4), 655–669.
Choi, S. O. (2010). Government Leadership Role and Forms of Nonprofit Collaboration. 국정관리연구, 5(2), 53–93.
Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research policy, 26(4), 475–491.
Gupta, A. K. (2011). Inclusive innovations for poverty alleviation: Creative ideas of the poor, for the poor. Berne: presented at the Annual SDC conference on Innovation and Development.
Hahm, S. D., Jung, K., & Moon, M. J. (2013). Shaping public corporation leadership in a turbulent environment. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 178–187.
Jung, W.-S., Kwon, O., Wang, F., Kaizoji, T., Moon, H.-T., & Stanley, H. E. (2008). Group dynamics of the Japanese market. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 387(2), 537–542.
Kamo, J., & Phillips, F. (1997). The evolutionary organization as a complex adaptive system. In Paper presented at the Innovation in Technology Management-The Key to Global Leadership. PICMET’97: Portland International Conference on Management and Technology.
Kim, B., & Park, K. (2006). Dynamics of industry consolidation and sustainable competitive strategy: Is birthright irrevocable? Long Range Plann, 39(5), 543–566.
Krishna, V. V. (1997). Science, Technology and Counter Hegemony—Some Reflections on the Contemporary Science Movements in India. In Science and technology in a developing world (pp. 375–411). Wellington: Springer.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
Lee, K. R. (1996). The role of user firms in the innovation of machine tools: The Japanese case. Research Policy, 25(4), 491–507.
Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Gates, G. (2010). Innovation, human capital, and creativity. International Review of Public Administration, 14(3), 13–24.
Lee, K., & Lim, C. (2001). Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy, 30(3), 459–483.
Lee, M., Park, K., & Park, T. (2008). Effects of a link between service provider and customer on a service supply chain. California Journal of Operations Management, 6(1), 102–108.
López, A. J. G., & Gamboa, F. J. C. (2013). Knowledge creation in organizations through learning. Intangible Capital, 9(3), 730–753.
Park, J., Cho, J., & Rose, A. (2011). Modeling a major source of economic resilience to disasters: recapturing lost production. Natural Hazards, 58(1), 163–182.
Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation, 30(1), 65–75.
Suzuki, J., & Kodama, F. (2004). Technological diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: Two case studies of large Japanese firms. Research Policy, 33(3), 531–549.
Witt, U. (2002). How evolutionary is Schumpeter’s theory of economic development? Industry and Innovation, 9(1-2), 7–22.
Yoo, H. S., Kim, J. H., Won, D. K., & Seo, J. (2013). Agent-based simulation of knowledge transfer dynamics in scale-free networks. Journal of Next Generation Information Technology, 4(8), 127–143.
Yun, J. J. (2015). How do we conquer the growth limits of capitalism? Schumpeterian Dynamics of Open Innovation. Journal Open Innovation, 42(6), 743–760.
Yun, J. J., Jeong, E., & Yang, J. (2015). Open innovation of knowledge cities. Journal Open Innovation, 1(1), 1–20.
Yun, J. J., Won, D., Hwang, B., Kang, J., & Kim, D. (2015). Analysing and simulating the effects of open innovation policies: Application of the results to Cambodia. Science and Public Policy, scu085.
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40852-017-0057-0.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Yun, J.J., Cooke, P., Kodama, F. et al. An open letter to Mr. Secretary general of the united nations to propose setting up global standards for conquering growth limits of capitalism. J. open innov. 2, 22 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0049-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0049-5
