Comparative Analysis of Sectoral Innovation System and Diamond Model: The Case of Telecom Sector of Iran

Mohammad Hosein Rezazadeh Mehrizi, Mohammad Packinat


Porter’s model of Competitive advantage of nations (named as Diamond Model) has been widely used and criticized as well, over recent two decades. On the other hand, non-mainstream economists have tried to propose new frameworks for industrial analysis, that among them, Sectoral Innovation System (SIS) is one of the most influential ones. After proposing an assessment framework, we use this framework to compare SIS and Porter’s models and apply them to the case of second mobile operator in Iran. Briefly, SIS model sheds light on the innovation process and competence building and focuses on system failures that are of special importance in the context of developing countries, while Diamond model has the advantage of brining the production process and the influential role of government into focus, but each one has its own shortcomings for analyzing industrial development in developing countries and both of them fail to pay enough attention to foreign relations and international linkages.


Sectoral Analysis, Sectoral Innovation System, Diamond Model,Telecom, Developing Countries, foreign relations

Full Text:

PDF [en]


DOSI G. (1982). "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: the determinants and directions of technological change and the transformation of the economy." Research Policy 11: 147-162.

DUNNING J. (1993). "Internationalizing Porter's diamond. 2 33, pp. 8-15 Special Issue (2)." Management International Review 33(2): 8-15.

EDQUIST C. (2005). systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges. The Oxford handbook of innovation. Fagerberg J. Mowery D. and Nelson R. R. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GRAY, H. R (1991). "International Competitiveness: A Review Article " The International Trade Journal.

LUNDVALL, B.-A. (1999). "National Business Systems and Na-tional Systems of Innovation." Lundvall; International Studies of Management & Organization 29.

MALERBA F, Ed. (2004). sectoral systems of innovation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

MCKELVEY, M. (1991). How do national systems of innovations differ?: a critical analysis of Porter, Freeman, Lundvall and Nelson. In: Hodgson, G.M., Screpanti, E.(Eds), Rethinking Economics: Markets,Technology and Economic Evolution, Edward Elgar, Aldershot: 117-137.

NEWMAN, H. (1978 ). "Strategic Groups and the Structure-Performance Relationship." The Rewiew of Economics and Statistics 60(3): 417-427.

NORTH, D. C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O'DONNELLAN, N. (1994). "Presence of Porter's Sectoral Clustering in Irish Manufacturing." Economic and Social Review 25(3): 221-232.

ÖZLEM, Ö. (2002). "Assessing Porter's framework for national advantage: the case of Turke." Journal of Business Research.

PAVITT K. (1984). "sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory." Research Policy 13(6): 343-373. porter M. (1980). competitive strategy. New York, Free press.

PORTER M. (1990). the competitive advantage of nations. New York, Free press.

RUGMAN,A. a.J. M. (1985). Megafirms: Strategies for Canada's Multinationals.Toronto, Methuen/Nelson.

VIOTTI, E. B. (2002). "National Learning Systems:A new approach on technological change in late industrializing economies and evidences from the cases of Brazil and South Korea." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 69: 653-680.


Copyright (c)

2017 © Universidad Alberto Hurtado - Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 
Erasmo Escala 1835 - Santiago, Chile.
Economic Analysis Review | Observatorio Económico | Gestión y Tendencias 

Journal Supported by Chimera Innova Group