فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

واکاوی راهبردهای حمایتی کلان در توسعه رقابت‌پذیری بین‌المللی شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت و کارآفرینی، دانشکده اقتصاد و حسابداری، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران
2 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت و کارآفرینی، دانشکده اقتصاد و حسابداری، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران
10.22034/smsj.2025.523453.2153
چکیده
شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان، به‌عنوان پیشران‌های اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان، نقش حیاتی در تقویت رقابت‌پذیری جهانی کشورها دارند. این پژوهش با هدف شناسایی و تحلیل سیاست‌های کلان حمایتی در کشورهای آلمان، کانادا، ترکیه، روسیه، ایتالیا و کره جنوبی، به‌منظور ارائه الگویی بومی برای ایران انجام شد. مطالعه از رویکرد آمیخته (کیفی-کمی) بهره برد؛ در بخش کیفی، اسناد و سیاست‌های حمایتی با تحلیل محتوا بررسی شدند و در بخش کمی، با استفاده از روش AHP و نظرات خبرگان، عوامل کلیدی اولویت‌بندی گردیدند. نتایج نشان داد که آموزش مهارت‌های صادراتی و حمایت‌های مالی، به‌ترتیب، مهم‌ترین راهبردها برای موفقیت شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان ایرانی در بازارهای بین‌المللی هستند. براساس نتایج پژوهش سیاست‌های حمایتی باید فراتر از کمک‌های مالی، شامل توسعه زیرساخت‌های فناورانه، تقویت شبکه‌سازی بین‌المللی و برندسازی جهانی باشند. این یافته‌ها تأکید دارند که برای ارتقای جایگاه جهانی شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان ایران، طراحی سیاست‌های منسجم، متناسب با شرایط بومی و بهره‌مندی از تجارب موفق جهانی ضروری است. چنین سیاست‌هایی می‌توانند با تمرکز بر آموزش، زیرساخت و ارتباطات بین‌المللی، توان رقابتی این شرکت‌ها را در عرصه جهانی تقویت کنند. از این رو، موفقیت این شرکت‌ها مستلزم هماهنگی سیاست‌ها و تطبیق آن‌ها با نیازهای داخلی و استانداردهای جهانی است تا جایگاه ایران در اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان جهانی بهبود یابد
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Analysis of macro-level supportive strategies for enhancing the international competitiveness of knowledge-based companies

نویسندگان English

Khadijeh Azizi 1
Bijan Rezaee 2
Yosef Mohamadifar 2
Nader Naderi 2
1 PhD student, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
2 Associate Proffessor, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction: Knowledge-based companies are central to the global shift toward a knowledge-driven economy, serving as key drivers of innovation, employment, and international competitiveness. By leveraging advanced technologies and innovative products, these companies significantly strengthen national economies on the global stage. However, knowledge-based companies in emerging markets like Iran face substantial barriers to enter and sustain their presence in global markets, including limited financial resources, regulatory inefficiencies, underdeveloped export infrastructure, and inadequate support systems. Thus, governmental macro-support policies are essential for facilitating their internationalization. This study examines macro-level supportive strategies adopted by countries that have successfully advanced their knowledge-based sectors globally, including Germany, Canada, Turkey, Russia, Italy, and South Korea—identified as exemplary models by the Export Development and Technology Exchange Fund. The primary aim of the present research is to develop a tailored policy framework for Iran to identify and prioritize key policy dimensions to enhance the international competitiveness of its knowledge-based companies.
Methodology: This applied research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative depth with quantitative generalizability. In the qualitative phase, comprehensive content analysis of official documents, international reports, academic articles, and policy papers from the six selected countries was inductively analyzed to identify and categorize key policy support themes as axial codes, representing core macro-policy dimensions. In the quantitative phase, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) prioritized these dimensions based on their relevance to Iran’s innovation ecosystem. A structured pairwise comparison questionnaire was administered to 12 experts, including policymakers, academics, and knowledge-based company managers from Iran’s innovation ecosystem. Expert Choice software calculated consistency ratios and assigned weights to each policy dimension, ensuring methodological rigor. The model identified seven key supportive strategies: (1) export education and skill development, (2) financial support and capital provision, (3) international branding and soft power (a nation’s ability to influence through cultural appeal and persuasion, enhancing global visibility for its companies), (4) global networking, (5) trade and customs facilitation, (6) opportunity-generating interventions (policies fostering new business opportunities for knowledge-based SMEs through advisory programs, market access facilitation, and specialized investment funds), and (7) investment in technological infrastructure.
Results and Discussion: The findings reveal significant variations in how the studied countries deploy policy instruments to support knowledge-based companies. Germany and South Korea lead in innovation-oriented subsidies and investments, exemplified by Germany’s High-Tech Strategy and South Korea’s substantial GDP allocation to Canada excels in tax incentives (e.g., SR&ED), while Turkey focuses on branding (e.g., Turquality) and SME support (e.g., KOSGEB). Export training is robust in Italy and Germany. South Korea and Turkey provide effective low-interest loans. Global networking is fostered through international trade fairs (e.g., Hannover Messe, Milan Design Week) in Germany, Italy, and Turkey. South Korea leverages cultural diplomacy (e.g., K-pop) for national business visibility, while Turkey’s Turquality enhances international positioning. Trade facilitation policies, like Turkey’s Inward Processing Regime and South Korea’s free trade agreements, streamline customs and reduce barriers. South Korea (e.g., Daedeok Innopolis) and Germany (e.g., Industrie 4.0) have invested heavily in technological infrastructure, creating robust platforms. The AHP analysis identified export training and skill development (29.8%) and financial support and capital provision (27.8%) as Iran’s top priorities, followed by international branding and soft power (17.6%), global networking (10.7%), trade and customs policies (7.1%), opportunity-generating interventions (4.4%), and technological infrastructure (2.7%). This prioritization highlights critical gaps in Iran’s innovation ecosystem, particularly in export readiness and capital access, aligning with prior research (e.g., Norouzi et al., 2024; Riyanto et al., 2024) emphasizing integrated financial and capacity-building support. The study underscores that adopting international models requires contextual adaptation to avoid inefficiencies. Iran’s focus on training and financial support addresses urgent skill gaps and capital constraints. While technological infrastructure is important, immediate human capital and financial mechanisms are more critical. South Korea and Germany demonstrate that sustained and infrastructure investment, coupled with strategic branding and networking, drives long-term competitiveness.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that government macro-level policies are pivotal for the internationalization of knowledge-based companies. The comparative analysis highlights the need for an integrated policy mix encompassing financial incentives, human capital development, infrastructure investment, and global branding. Successful implementation requires close alignment with local realities, robust institutional coordination, and broad ecosystem engagement. For Iran, immediate priorities include establishing comprehensive export education programs and diverse financial mechanisms, such as venture capital funds, innovation grants, and targeted tax incentives. Strategic investments in technology parks, proactive international marketing, and adaptive regulatory reforms are essential to overcome barriers to global market entry. Additionally, fostering public-private partnerships and leveraging digital platforms for market intelligence can enhance access to global opportunities. A holistic ecosystem approach, with collaboration among universities, industries, and governments under a unified innovation agenda, is critical for nurturing globally competitive knowledge-based companies. This study provides a comprehensive policy framework grounded in global best practices and tailored to Iran’s socio-economic context. It enables strategic interventions, including mentorship programs with experienced exporters and regional trade hubs, to enhance Iran’s competitiveness in the global knowledge economy, fostering sustainable economic growth and innovation.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Knowledge-based economy
International networking
Global branding
Export skills
International markets
 
1.      Abdi, I. (2024). Participatory knowledge-based economy: Examining the necessity of participatory governance in knowledge-based business. (19831). Monthly Journal of Expert Reports of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 32(3), 19831. (in persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/report.2024.16906.1788
2.      Alaei Tababaee, A. , Elyasi, M. , Zandhesami, H. and Torabi, T. (2021). A Functional-Structural Analysis of Policies for the Internationalization of Knowledge-based Companies. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 14(3), 55-70. doi: 10.22034/jstp.2021.14.3.1382
3.      Alamri, A. G. S., Harfash, S. A. Z., & Alsaleem, N. A. I. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Traditional, Agile, and Flexible Management Approaches (Exploring Differences, Compatibility, and Impacts on Organizational Performance). Ajrsp6(67), 143-155.‏‏ https://doi.org/10.52132/Ajrsp.e.2024.67.6
4.      Andersson, S., Evers, N., & Kuivalainen, O. (2014). International new ventures: rapid internationalization across different industry contexts. European Business Review26(5), 390-405. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-05-2014-0040
5.      Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Schenkenhofer, J. (2018). Internationalization strategies of hidden champions: lessons from Germany. Multinational Business Review26(1), 2-24.https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-01-2018-0006
6.      Bąk, I., Wawrzyniak, K., & Oesterreich, M. (2022). Competitiveness of the regions of the European Union in a sustainable knowledge-based economy. Sustainability14(7), 3788 https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073788
7.      Belitski, M., Delgado‐Márquez, B. L., & Pedauga, L. E. (2024). Your innovation or mine? The effects of partner diversity on product and process innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management41(1), 112-137.https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12696
8.      Ben Hassen, T. (2024). A study on Lebanon’s competitive knowledge-based economy, relative strengths, and shortcomings. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-28.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01644-8
9.      Chekol, C., & Gebreyohannes, M. (2018). Application and current trends of biotechnology: a brief review. Austin Journal of Biotechnology & Bioengineering5(1), 1-8. https://www.researchgate.net/pu blication/383275685 
10.   Coveri, A., & Zanfei, A. (2023). Who wins the race for knowledge-based competitiveness? Comparing European and North American FDI patterns. The Journal of Technology Transfer48(1), 292-330.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09911-z
11.   Dai, M., & Li, B. (2020). Improving firm survival: exports or outward foreign direct investment?. Post-Communist Economies32(5), 675-696.https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2019.1678097
12.   Eerme, T., & Nummela, N. (2019). Capitalising on knowledge from big-science centres for internationalisation. International Marketing Review36(1), 108-130.https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2017-0059
13.   Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315620183
14.   Etzkowitz, H., Ranga, M., Benner, M., Guaranys, L., Maculan, A. M., & Kneller, R. (2008). Pathways to the entrepreneurial university: towards a global convergence. Science and Public Policy, 35(9), 681-695. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X389701
15.   Fallah m r, lesani s h, esmaeeli zade f. Investigating the preconditions for the successful implementation of the resistance economy of the oil industry. Mieaoi 2022; 11 (40): 10. (in persian). http://mieaoi.ir/article-1-1037-fa.html
16.   Fellows, G. K., & Tombe, T. (2018). Opening Canada's North: A Study of Trade Costs in the Territories. SPP Research Paper, (11/17).https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3217725
17.   Gryshchenko, I., Barikova, A., Oliinyk, V., Kozak, I., & Lutsiv, N. (2023). Government financial support for businesses in the period of global threats. Cuestiones Políticas41(78).https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4178.41
18.   Gupta, D. S. K. (2020). Study of nanotechnology and its application. Journal of Physics & Optics Sciences. SRC/JPSOS/112 J Phy Opt Sci2(1), 2.  https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/study-of-nanotechnology-and-its-application.pdf
19.   Haghighi Kafash, M. , Sayaf, L. , Khalilnezhad, S. and Khashei Varnamkhasti, V. (2021). Designing a strategy implementation model in knowledge-based companies. Journal of Strategic Management Studies12(47), 23-40. (in persian). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22286853.1400.12.47.9.7
20.   Hatami, M. , Cheraghali, M. , Saeedi, P. and Mostaghimi, M. (2021). Provide an internationalization model for small and medium-sized industrial businesses supported by the Omid Entrepreneurship Fund. Science and Technology Policy Letters11(2), 5-16. (in persian). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24767220.1400.11.2.8.8
21.   Hefferan, M., & Fern, A. (2018). Questioning the value of government support for start-up, knowledge-intensive companies: Emerging evidence and future options. The Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 24(1), 78–95. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.590285287495238
22.   Jayeola, O., Sidek, S., Sanyal, S., Hasan, S. I., An, N. B., Ajibade, S. S. M., & Phan, T. T. H. (2022). Government financial support and financial performance of SMEs: A dual sequential mediator approach. Heliyon8(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11351
23.   Jiang, Y., Ma, Z., & Wang, X. (2023). The impact of knowledge management on intellectual property risk prevention: analysis from China’s strategic emerging industries. Journal of Knowledge Management27(1), 197-207.https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2022-0216
24.   Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (2015). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. In International business strategy (pp. 33-59). Routledge.https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315848365-5/uppsala-internationalization-process-model-revisited-jan-johanson-jan-erik-vahlne
25.   Kato, M. (2020). Founders’ human capital and external knowledge sourcing: Exploring the absorptive capacity of start-up firms. Economics of innovation and new technology, 29(2), 184-205. ISO 690. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2019.1598670
26.   Knight, G. (2015). Born global firms: Evolution of a contemporary phenomenon. In Entrepreneurship in international marketing (Vol. 25, pp. 3-19). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-797920140000025001
27.   Kubitskyi, S., Yeremenko, D., Danylenko, V., Bataiev, S., & Varaksina, E. (2024). Evaluating the impact of innovative technologies on global competitiveness through modelling. Multidisciplinary Science Journal6.https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2024ss0710
28.   Li, J., Rim, G. N., & An, C. J. (2023). Comparative study of knowledge-based economic strength between China and the USA. Journal of the Knowledge Economy14(4), 4256-4292.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-01054-2
29.   Li, Y. (2023). Research on the Influencing Factors, Paths and Effects of Chinese Enterprises' Internationalization Strategy. Advances in Economics and Management Research7(1), 650-650.
30.   Lomachynska, I., Babenko, V., Yemets, O., Yakubovskiy, S., & Hryhorian, R. (2020). Impact of the foreign direct investment inflow on the export growth of the Visegrad group countries. Studies of Applied Economics38(4). https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v38i4.4007
31.   Mai, B. T., Nguyen, P. V., Ton, U. N. H., & Ahmed, Z. U. (2024). Government policy, IT capabilities, digital transformation, and innovativeness in Post-Covid context: case of Vietnamese SMEs. International Journal of Organizational Analysis32(2), 333-356.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-11-2022-3480
32.   mohammadi, F. , abdolhamid, M. and Zakari. (2024). The requirement of creative and cultural industry businesses internationalization (focusing on digital content businesses). Science and Technology Policy Letters13(4), 5-18. (in persian). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24767220.1402.13.4.1.9
33.   Musayeva, N., Atakishiyeva, N., Mammadova, U., Tanriverdiyeva, G., & Lemishko, O. (2024). The impact of trade policy on the export of agricultural products of Azerbaijan. Scientific Horizons, 27(11), 141-152.  http://dx.doi.org/10.48077/scihor11.2024.141      
34.   Noruzi, M. , khatami, H. and hajihasani, S. (2024). Typological of government support for small and medium businesses. Journal of Improvement Management18(2), 21-47. (in persian) .https://doi.org/10.22034/jmi.2024.440936.3057  
35.   Otto, m., & thornton, j. (2024). The impact of small business and entrepreneurial entities on the country's export and import. Qo ‘qon universiteti xabarnomasi12, 77-81.https://doi.org/10.54613/ku.v12i.994
36.   Park, D. U., Park, H., Kim, Y., Baek, S., Lee, D., Jang, Y., ... & Rodriguez, F. S. (2021). The role of science, technology and innovation policies in the industrialization of developing countries. Lessons from East Asian countries10.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359507772_The_Role_of_Science_Technology_and_Innovation_Policies_in_the_Industrialization_of_Developing_Countries_Lessons_from_East_Asian_countries?utm_source=chatgpt.com 
37.   Polyakov, M. (2017). Positive impact of international companies on development of knowledge economy. Problems and Perspectives in Management. https://doi.org/10.21511/PPM.15(2).2017.08
38.   Raeesi Nafchi, S., Hasangholipour, T., & Abbasian, E. (2021). A Framework for the Export Development of Nanotechnology Products of Knowledge-based Companies in the Construction Industry: A Grounded Theory Approach. International Journal of Business and Development Studies13(1), 75-93.https://doi.org/10.22111/ijbds.2021.6581
39.   Rivero-Gutiérrez, L., Cabanelas, P., Díez-Martín, F., & Blanco-González, A. (2024). How can companies boost legitimacy in international markets? A dynamic marketing capabilities approach. International Marketing Review41(1), 273-301.https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2022-0215
40.   Riyanto, S., Sudarso, S., & Sumardi, S. (2024). International Market Development Strategy in Companies. International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology4(1), 137-147.https://doi.org/10.35870/ijmsit.v4i1.2682
41.   Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources Allocation. Mcgraw-Hill, New York. DOI: 10.4236/ajcm.2022.124027
42.   Sajedi, S. E. , Hosseininia, G. H., & Ziyae, B. (2024). Presenting the model of internationalization of cooperative-oriented business in Iran. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development16(Issue 5 (Special Issue)), 304-324. (in persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/jed.2023.356968.654165
43.   Seyed Naghavi, M. , Nasehifar, V. , Dehghanan, H., & Khosravi, M. (2021). Designing an Intellectual Capital Implementation Model in Knowledge-Based Companies. Journal of Strategic Management Studies12(47), 113-136. (in persian) https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22286853.1400.12.47.11.9
44.   Spilotro, C., Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., & Barbieri, V. (2023). How Linkedin Can Boost SMEs’ Digital Marketing Strategies on International Markets: A Case Study of an Apulian Tech-Intensive Company. In ECKM 2023 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management Vol 2. Academic Conferences and publishing limited.http://dx.doi.org/10.34190/eckm.24.2.1457
45.   Van Luu, T., Chromjaková, F. (2024) .Knowledge-based circular economics model for sustainable competitiveness: framework development and analysis. Environ Dev Sustain  . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04415-2
46.   Vrdoljak Raguž, I., Borovac Zekan, S., & Peronja, I. (2017). Knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in knowledge based companies. In DIEM: Dubrovnik International Economic Meeting (Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 533-544). Sveučilište u Dubrovniku.https://hrcak.srce.hr/187409
47.   Wagner, J. (2014). Exports, foreign direct investments and productivity: are services firms different?. The Service Industries Journal34(1), 24-37.https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.763344
48.   Zahedi, A. E., Mirghfoori, S. H., & Morovati Sharif Abadi, A. (2018). An integrated map to developing the innovation and commercialization potential of Iranian knowledge-based companies. Cogent Business & Management5(1), 1523345. (in persian). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1523345
49.   Zakery, A., & Saremi, M. S. (2021). Knowledge and intellectual capital in internationalizing SMEs, case study in technology-based health companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital22(2), 219-242.https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0048
دوره 17، شماره 65
بهار 1405
صفحه 117-134

  • تاریخ دریافت 24 اردیبهشت 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 05 تیر 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 09 شهریور 1404