Intellectual property, creativity and innovation : IP models and the political economy of developing Asia

In advanced capitalist societies, intellectual property laws protecting such subject matter as copyright and patents are justified by a combination of theories, which include the provision of economic incentives to foster creativity and innovation and the prevention of unfair competition. IP academics and policy makers have differing views about the appropriate balance between these objectives and public interest considerations such as health, education and the protection of the environment. These different views entered the policy debate in Asian developing countries in connection with an unprecedented introduction and expansion of IP laws over the last 25 years. This paper will use case studies of law reform from Asia, in particular Southeast Asia, to show that the policy considerations of governments in reforming their laws were often quite different from the standard rationale mentioned above. As much of the IP was, at least initially, held by foreigners and introduced to attract foreign investment, national development considerations were joined with the more commonly quoted objectives to promote the rights, creativity and innovation of individuals. Such national development objectives at times coincided and at other times collided with official explanations and received wisdom about the effects of stronger IP rights.

Especially in the early postcolonial period, copyright laws and other IP laws were frequently restricted or simply not implemented, if they conflicted with development policies in areas such as education or public health. Such policies were slowly changing in the wake of WTO-TRIPS and other international agreements. Nevertheless, the implementation and enforcement of the IP laws has been uneven. Specialised institutions such as courts and IP administering agencies compete with other branches of government and administration for limited funding and a rich repertoire of informal dispute settlement procedures has kept the number of court cases relatively low. In some countries, censorship laws have influenced freedom of expression and led to quite idiosyncratic interpretations of intellectual property laws. Governments often also retain a role in the assessment of licensing and technology transfer contracts. And while there are many programs to foster individual creativity, in most cases R & D activities are still largely taking place in government institutions and this has influenced the thinking about intellectual property rights and creativity in the context of employment.

The paper uses a few case studies to examine the implementation of IP laws in selected Asian developing countries to point to the quite different institutional setting for IP law reform in comparison to European or American models. It reaches some tentative conclusions as to the likely effects on creativity and innovation under these different circumstances.

Knowledge and education for a sustainable and socially just world : the ecology of innovation and creativity for humanity

Sustainability is a critical aim of Malaysian public policy and an important aim in education. Nonetheless, what sustainability means as it relates to education and the relationship between education and a sustainable future is unclear. In this paper I shall investigate the role that Universities in Malaysia play in shifting the practice and culture of innovation and creativity towards more sustainable values and outcomes. Sustainable education is based on ensuring that the capacities of students and the broader society are reengaged and empowered through connecting education to the needs and aspirations of civil society and moving away from neoliberal ideas of education as a practice of consumption towards, sustainable values of advancing human dignity.

Creativity and innovation within such an educational framework are goals and practices deeply connected and embedded within sustainable commitments to social justice, the public good, as well as individual growth and development which provide a critical legitimizing principle for university research and teaching. One of the key theoretical influences in making this argument will draw from the arguments of Amartya Sen whose theorization of capability may provide us with a way of thinking about social growth and development that is not possessively individualistic but rather socially concerned. I will discuss this in reference to the approach of University Sains Malaysia which provides an example of a public University seeking to engage sustainability and tie educational creativity and innovation back to the common good and a sustainable future.

The philosophical aim of this paper is to show how universities can pursue creativity and innovation as socially useful practices for advancing humane and sustainable values throughout Malaysian society and avoid the fusion of creativity with possessive individualism, consummerization and social irresponsibility. In this respect this paper addresses directly the theme of the conference: ‘Thinking Minds: Nurturing the Design of a Better Future'. '

To realise our national aspirations, a concerted effort is needed to increase our nation’s competitiveness, productivity and innovativeness. Attributes such as desire for knowledge, innovative thinking, creativity and competitiveness must be imbued within our people. The inculcation of moral values, progressiveness and performance-based cultures must also be instilled if we are to nurture successful individuals of the highest quality. This will determine our success as a knowledge-based economy.’ (Badawi 2007)

Curriculum for entrepreneurial creativity and resourcefulness in New Zealand

This thesis asks: ‘How can tertiary education nurture entrepreneurial creativity?’ Entrepreneurship is considered to be a vital determinant of economic growth and the entrepreneur is understood as someone who innovates and commercialises their own innovation. The setting is New Zealand which is struggling to make the shift from relying on primary production to becoming a ‘creative economy.’ The creative individual has been identified as a new mainstream but it is argued that in New Zealand, education provision is inadequate for supporting the development of the practice of entrepreneurship. The problem is not unique. Various writers are critical of business education generally, and of the mismatch between the passion and chaos in entrepreneurs’ lives and the way education programs are typically organised as a linear sequence of discipline-based courses with prescribed content, activities and outcomes. Rich data were gathered from in-depth interviews with twelve nascent, new or experienced entrepreneurs and two associates (one a marketer, the other a scientist). Each participant was drawn from a different area of economic endeavour. They were asked to share their stories and views about creativity, the connections between creativity and entrepreneurship, business success, formal and informal education, and ways to improve tertiary education programs. The research found that a suitable environment for nurturing creativity will most likely have structure but will also enable chaos. It will present opportunities for experiencing diversity, and will stimulate unconscious and conscious mental processes. It will provide scope for hard work that is fun and involves authentic risk-taking, and will enable both individual and purposeful teamwork. The study also found that business success is not based on knowledge but is rather about being resourceful. The becoming of the creative entrepreneur thus includes developing capability to network with peers and mentors and communicate with customers and staff, and developing passion for and resilience in the pursuit of a dream. The findings suggest that in an age of uncertainty, nurturing entrepreneurial creativity and resourcefulness requires learning to be viewed as a practice-based community process where knowing and doing are interwoven with being. It is argued that this needs to align with Ronald Barnett and Kelly Coate’s (2005) notion of ‘a curriculum for engagement.’ It is suggested that an entire program might simply invite students to work collaboratively to identify and exploit an entrepreneurial opportunity by producing and commercialising an appropriate product/service innovation; to undertake this work as two separate projects – one within an existing organisation, and the other as a new venture; and to theorise their work. It is proposed that a suitable framework lies in William Doll’s (2002) advocacy for a curriculum based on a matrix of five Cs: ‘currere,’ complexity, cosmology, conversation, and community. To these, creativity is added as a sixth C.

Australian cultural and innovation policies: never the twain shall meet?

 In recent years, Australian cultural policy-makers have begun to pay more attention to innovation policy. Several of the Australian states specifically address issues of innovation in their formal cultural policies, and the Australia Council for the Arts has published an Innovation Strategy which purports to constitute 'a coordinated approach to supporting creativity as one of Australia's most valuable assets' (Australia Council 2006).

However, despite this prima facie policy commitment to supporting and fostering innovation in the arts and cultural industries, there remains a disconnect between cultural and innovation policies in Australia. On the one hand, cultural policies in Australia are confused and incoherent in their approach to cultural innovation, and many policy settings as they apply to cultural industries are antithetical to the aims of fostering innovation and R&D. Meanwhile, innovation policies continue to pay only marginal attention to the creative arts and cultural industries. This disconnect will be briefly examined in three fields of cultural policy: arts and cultural funding; copyright and intellectual property policy; and broadcast media policy.

It is argued that rather than promoting innovation, existing policy frameworks in all three areas, when not specifically framed around the protection of vested interests, are often contradictory and inimical to the disruptive influence of innovative artists, technologies and firms. Possible reasons for the disconnect include pragmatic matters of busy ministers and low policy priorities, and conceptual confusion over the status and value of culture.

Generational and cultural indicators of technology and innovation in family business

The internet revolution has affected everybody in some way. Technologies used in business range from telephones to industry-specific machinery. Mostly though, business technology has come to mean the internet. In literature concerning innovation and the adoption of technology in business, research invariably centres on small to medium businesses (SI'v1Es), as these can be defined reasonably easily. Statistics on family businesses are limited, however, because family businesses are so difficult to categorize and define.

The Australian Family Business Survey of 1993 (Institute of Chartered Accountants) determined that family business is the largest form of business ownership in Australia and represents 83% of all business enterprises, although Basu (2004) believes that over two thirds of all world-wide businesses are owned or managed by families and around half of all businesses in Australia are family businesses. The Australian Institute of Management (AIM) (2004) states that the wealth of family and private businesses is estimated at $3.6 trillion and that family firms generate 50 per cent of Australia's employment growth, account for 40 per cent of Australia's private sector output, and are a seed bed for innovation and the information of large companies.

The difficulty in defining a family business is heightened because family businesses can take many forms ranging from sole traders to private companies to public companies. Hence, when talking about family business, you could be referring to the sole trader dealing with organic produce to an IT organisation employing hundreds of staff. Basu (2004) thinks that while ordinarily, in non-family businesses, the business and family domains remain separate, the key distinctive characteristic of family businesses is that family members work together for economic purposes. In other words, the family is not merely a social unit but also an economic unit. Craig and Lindsay (2002) believe that family involvement in the business is what makes the family business different... researchers, however, cannot seem to agree as to what constitutes 'family involvement' in a business so that it can be defined as a family business and that family business is ... a business that is governed and/or managed with the intention to shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition that is controlled by members of the same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially sustainable across generations of the family or families.

The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation performance: An empirical examination

This empirical study examines the relationship between total quality management (TQM) and innovation performance and compares the nature of this relationship against quality performance. The empirical data were obtained from a survey of 194 managers in Australian industry encompassing both manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors.

The knowledge economy and innovation: certain uncertainty and the risk economy

The knowledge economy is a dominant force in today's world, and innovation policy and national systems of innovation are central to it. In this article, we draw on different sociological and economic theories of risk to engage critically with innovation policy and national systems of innovation. Beck's understanding of a risk society, Schumpeter's innovation thesis, and Perez's techno-economic paradigm are used to consider the risk economy, and the broader risk implications of knowledge economy policies and their associated innovation systems. Derrida's theory of haunting provides the methodological framework for our discussion. We use his notion of “hauntology” to conceptualize the risk economy as a ghost that haunts knowledge economy policies and systems. The spectral risk economy draws attention to the inherent instability of the knowledge economy, and challenges the certainty of its economic dogma by offering an alternative perspective. The risk economy problematizes knowledge economy policies and systems by revealing the uncertain and “undecidable” future of social, political and cultural hazards ignored in the interest of commercial gain.

Cross-discipline collaboration and innovation in the design studio : drawing on the Bath model

As information expands and comprehension becomes more complex, so the need increases to develop focused areas of knowledge and skill acquisition. However, as the number of specialty areas increases so the languages that define each separate knowledge base become increasingly remote. Hence, concepts and viewpoints that were once considered part of a whole become detached. This phenomenon is typical of the development of tertiary education, especially within professional oriented courses, where disciplines and sub-disciplines have grown further apart and the ability to communicate has become increasingly fragmented.
One individual and visionary who was well acquainted with the shortcomings of the piecemeal development between the disciplines was Professor Sir Edmond Happold, the leader of the prestigious group known as Structures 3 at Ove Arup and Partners, who were responsible for making happen some of the landmark buildings of their time, including Sydney Opera House and the Pompidou Centre, and the founding professor of the Bath school of Architecture and Civil Engineering in 1975. While still having a profound respect for the knowledge bases of the different professions within the building and construction industry, Professor Happold was also well aware of the extraordinary synergies in design and innovation which could come about when the disciplines of Architecture and Civil Engineering were brought together at the outset of the design process.
This paper discusses the rational behind Professor Happold’s cross-discipline model of education and reflects on the method, execution and pedagogical worth of the joint studio-based projects which formed a core aspect of the third year program at the School of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the Bath University.

A creative twist: management theory, creativity and the arts

For many theorists and practitioners in the area of organizational theory, HRM, marketing and other domains of organization studies, organizational creativity is something to be distilled and managed as an element of organizational performance. The article argues, however, that this process of appropriation from the creative arts is subject to a number of problematic transitions. The article's starting point is the notion of creativity itself. Within the creative arts, the question of what constitutes creativity and its relationship to artistic practice is subject to considerable debate. This debate centers on the question of whether creativity represents an essentialist and inexplicable (even spiritual) component of artistic practice or whether creativity is a trait of work and cannot be attributed as a unique aspect of art. The mantra of creativity provides nothing more than a means to control individuals and provide them with a false hope that contributing to the success of business will provide a means to self fulfillment.