Comment on “The Evolution of University–Industry Linkages in Thailand”

Abstract

Thailand has set itself the target of becoming a developed country by 2037. To achieve this goal, the nation must enhance its technological capabilities to produce higher-value-added products. Over the past two decades, Thailand has worked to improve its competitiveness through innovation by increasing research and development (R&D) investment. The country's gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) rose from 0.25% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2000 to 1.33% in 2020. This is driven by a significant increase in private sector R&D expenditure, which rose from 35% of total GERD in 2000 to 68% in 2020. However, firms' R&D output performance, as measured by granted patents, has seen slower progress (Rattanakhamfu & Itthiphatwong, 2019). Some have argued that this is due to weak university-industry linkages (UILs).

In fact, 15 years ago, Brimble and Doner (2007) emphasized the role of university–industry linkages (UILs) in Thailand's technological competencies. Based on their analysis of four sectors—the automotive sector, the textile and garment sector, the agro-industry, and the electronics sector—Brimble and Doner concluded that Thai UILs played a very limited role in the country's economic development. They attributed weak UILs to low competition in the domestic market, inefficient structures and weak incentives in Thai universities, and the fragmentation of the Thai bureaucracy.

Intarakumnerd and Jutarosaga (2023) contribute to the existing literature by examining the role of UILs in three sectors, namely the automotive sector, the electronics sector, and the pharmaceutical sector, based on their analysis of R&D and Innovation (RDI) Surveys between 2014 and 2018 and case studies. They find that despite significant development in the higher education system over the past two decades, Thailand's UILs remain weak. Most UIL activities focus on human resource development, particularly student internships and employee training. Research-related linkages are particularly weak. Among the sectors studied, the pharmaceutical and electronics industries appear to have stronger ties with universities than the automotive sector.

In summary, Intarakumnerd and Jutarosaga offer valuable insights into the evolution of UILs in Thailand. To further enhance their contribution to the field, Intarakumnerd and Jutarosaga should consider the following revisions:

First, by providing descriptive statistics on the firms in the sample so that readers can understand the firms' characteristics from the RDI survey, such as firm size and nationality. Although Intarakumnerd and Jutarosaga argue that there is a bias towards large firms, as all have asset sizes of more than THB 10 million, this is not the case when firm size is measured by sales. In fact, the proportion of small, medium, and large firms are relatively equal (each around 30%–39%) in all survey years.

Second, by offering recommendations to improve not only student internships but also other underdeveloped UIL forms in Thailand, such as research partnerships, technology transfers, and industry-sponsored research.