Corps de l’article

Established literature has already recognized the importance of technological catching up (TCU) for latecomer economies and their industries, such as South Korea’s electronics industry (Kim, 1980) and India’s and Brazil’s pharmaceutical industries (Guennif & Ramani, 2012). Other scholars further summarize in detail TCU’s stages (e.g., Kim, 1980; Jin & von Zedtwitz, 2008). These studies mainly emphasize TCU’s significance or emphasize the stages that one industry sector may experience. Meanwhile, existing studies do not reveal how TCU transforms an industry during these processes.

Process Theory discusses entity development (Van de Ven, 1992). It is primarily concerned with organizations, particularly their shifting patterns (Hutzschenreuter & Kleindienst, 2006; Langley et al., 2013), antecedents (Doz, 1996; Fischer, Dietz, & Antonakis, 2017), consequences (Hervas-Oliver & Sempere-Ripoll, 2015), and connections between processes and strategy-as-practices (Kouamé & Langley, 2018). To date, little is known about industrial change from a Process Theory perspective. In this study, we apply process thinking (Langley, 2007; Langley et al., 2013), and industrial level analysis helps us understand organizational changes (Rajagopalan & Spreitzer, 1997). Established TCU literature focuses on antecedents and, more recently, the windows of opportunity. The research gaps was identified heuristically from the literature: the majority investigate the antecedents (e.g., Spanos & Voudouris, 2009; Kiamehr et al., 2014; Xiong & Monin, 2015; Huang et al., 2020; etc.), while the process has received less attention. Although the catching up process analysis has been stated (e.g., Cho et al., 1998; Lee & Lim, 2001; Jin & von Zedtwitz, 2008; etc.), our knowledge is still not holistic or systemic. Recent research infers similar needs (Landini, Lema, & Malerba, 2020; Malerba & Lee, 2020), highlighting the necessity of viewing catching up from the evolutionary perspective as a process. Dynamically, the process, including sequences and order, is fundamental to catching up (Landini, Lema, & Malerba, 2020; Malerba & Lee, 2020). Li et al. (2020) found that the complicated process of TCU, especially in Chinese industries, is insufficient and requires further analysis from industries and enterprises. Consequently, to study one specific type of industrial change, TCU, we shift the focus from organizations to industries. Thus, our research question is: how does an industrial-level technological catching up process develop?

In accordance with Process Theory (Mohr, 1982; Langley, 1999), we conducted a qualitative inductive analysis, based on 32 interviews with company managers in the Chinese auto parts industry. We supplemented this with secondary data. A case study approach was used to analyze the data. In addition to the four Process Theory families (Van de Ven, 1992), lifecycle, teleology, dialectic, and evolution, a novel alternative paradigm which we coined coexistence, is yielding results in chronicling the TCU process at the industrial level.

Coexistence refers to three transitional situations involving interactions between new and old generations of products and technologies due to catching up. We argue that the coexistence paradigm can also explain the forerunners’ and latecomers’ catching up states. For instance, early in catching up, the latecomer develops rapidly and its performance and that of the forerunners draw closer. In path-following (Lee & Lim, 2001), the latecomer usually adopts the benchmark approach to imitate the forerunners’ development path. However, a latecomer can only coexist asymptotically by duplicative imitation. If the external environment offers some windows of opportunity (Lee & Malerba, 2017), or the latecomers achieve independent and autonomous technological breakthroughs, they are likely to gather some momentum and attain convergent coexistence with the forerunners. If the latecomers acquire competitive advantages, while the forerunner is constrained by development inertia and lags behind (Jin & von Zedtwitz, 2008), then the latecomers can forge ahead and become the new leader. This forms intersectional coexistence.

This study contributes to the existing literature twofold. First, we contribute a new and complementary level of analysis, the industrial level, to Process Theory. Second, TCU from a process point-of-view extends and complements the catching up literature. Existing literature mostly focuses on the stages and timeframes of a specific industry’s catching up process. This research context of the Chinese auto parts manufacturing industry provides fine-grained empirical evidence of catching up and presents new insights for decision makers and policymakers when adopting a catching up strategy.

Literature review and theoretical development

Technological catching up

A catching up story features the forerunner, the latecomer, and the interval, where the latecomer endeavors to taper the catch up the forerunner to the forerunner. The interval is typically based on gaps between income, productivity, and technology (Lee, 2013). TCU in income, productivity, and market aspects were preceded by technology (Lee & Lim, 2001). The latecomer’s convergence and surpassing of the forerunner are outcomes of successful catching up. In this study, we view catching up as a strategy and define it as “a pattern in a stream of decisions” (Mintzberg, 1979, p.582). Unlike Strategy-as-Practice, the Strategy Process examines the rationale and mechanisms underlying strategic management changes. These changes include the evolving formulation and implementation that have developed over time (Van de Ven, 1992). As a result, in strategy process studies, the “how” and the “why” are the predominant research questions.

In a unidirectional technological trajectory, the latecomer accelerates the race by skipping some stages or developing a novel path, to leapfrog obsolete technology and avoid capital-intensive system development (Perez & Soete, 1988; Hobday, 1995). Lee and Lim (2001) describe three patterns of TCU from the technological evolution of six Korean industries: path-creating, path-skipping, and path-following. The former two are recognized as leapfrogging. Path-creating catching up driven by technological paradigm shifts creates opportunities for latecomers and challenges for the forerunners (Lee et al., 2005; Wu & Zhang, 2010). Catching up is a knowledge-accumulation and technology-development process that advances forward-thinking technology adoption (Spanos & Voudouris, 2009). For path-creating catching up, its deviation from the established technological trajectory begins with capability building, and its development along the newly constructed path demonstrates instability and high volatility (Figueiredo, 2010). The catching up process has been explored and analyzed at the national, industrial, and company levels. At national macroeconomic level, discontinuities (usually recognized as windows of opportunity) are often investigated and involve shifts in institutional, technological, and market demand perspectives. At the company’s micro-level, trends and stages of catching up are studied and discussed. Examining industrial meso-level catching up blends the strengths and weaknesses of macro and micro studies. This results in a comprehensive understanding of the catching up process.

Catching up at organizational level

At the organizational level, catching up steps are viewed from two perspectives: technology and market. Technology-wise, many studies have recognized technological assimilation and localization as essential barometers. Hobday (1995) summarizes historical technological development as a catching up process in which the latecomer begins by acquiring foreign knowledge through subcontracting and offering original equipment manufacturing (OEM). Subsequently, it develops its own-design and manufacture (ODM) with product design competencies growing from learning and original brand manufacture (OBM) to capture additional added value. Technological learning has five stages: “preparation, implementation of foreign technology, acquisition of peripheral technology, acquisition of core technology, and finally improvement of foreign technology” (Sung & Hong, 1999, p.305). On a solid foundation, the latecomer reverse-engineers the forerunner’s product to steepen the learning curve, integrate more sophisticated technologies, and focus on innovation niches (Guennif & Ramani, 2012).

From the market perspective, the catching up process can be separated into three stages: domestic expansion, international presence, and global strategy building (Zhu et al., 2011). Companies first infiltrate the domestic market, followed by the international market (Guennif & Ramani, 2012). TCU builds the company’s brand value and market share catching up (Joo & Lee, 2010). Conversely, leveraging local client relationships and domestic demand lowers the entry barrier for latecomers when absorbing innovative foreign technology (Kiamehr et al., 2015). The catching up process from the stage of entering the international market to the stage of competing in the global market is consistent with those latecomer firms based in emerging markets, in particular those emerging market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) who implement the springboard strategy (Luo and Tung, 2007, 2018). The development of latecomers between the stage of domestic expansion and that of international presence can be considered a pre-springboard period, during which most of the latecomer firms acquire strategic resources and build capabilities from the international industrial leaders or foreign direct invested multinational companies (MNEs from more established advanced countries).

Catching up at industrial level

For industrial level catching up research, the spotlight is often on the antecedents of catching up. Guennif and Ramani’s (2012) research on Indian and Brazilian pharmaceutical companies highlights the need to accumulate and expand diverse capabilities, such as innovation, production, regulatory handling, etc. As an external factor, the national innovation system has significantly helped catching up in both cases. The catching up of the Chinese hypermarket industry is based on four main factors: learning, managerial mobility, government intervention, and local advantages (Xiong & Monin, 2015). Xu et al. (2018) investigated China’s 3D printing industry and discovered that knowledge-driven innovation, rather than technical duplication, is key for successful catching up.

Kim (1980) identifies three stages for studying Korea’s electronic industry. These key steps are implementing foreign technology for local experience accumulation “assimilating imported technology” and improving imported technology in conjunction with internal capabilities and the external market. Jin and von Zedtwitz (2008) analyze China’s mobile phone industry and observed technological obsolescence, which is distinct from Korea’s experience. These studies seem to highlight the catching up stages but actually endorse the importance of the antecedents of technology absorption, capability building, and external environmental adaptation.

Mohr (1982) divides strategic change research into two categories: Variance Theory and Process Theory. The variance model demonstrates how the antecedents collectively account for the strategic change, whereas a process model has time-ordered events, activities, and choices.

At the organizational level, catching up strategy has been researched using process models, since studying a company offers a closer observation of evolving decisions and stages. At the industrial level, the antecedents and windows of opportunities are usually extracted. Introducing the process view into the TCU industrial-level study incorporates antecedents, windows of opportunity, and events into a systemic paradigm.

This study recognizes the process as “a sequence of events that describes how things change over time” (Van de Ven, 1992, p.169). In Van de Ven’s (1992) study, process theories are divided by their generative mechanisms into predictive (i.e., lifecycle and teleology families) and explanative categories (i.e., dialectic and evolution families). These categories explicitly present the underlying logic for observable developmental progressions. Despite diverse situations, studies of TCU haven’t reached a consensus on its procedure. Established studies mainly focus on a TCU’s stages or periods, while leaving the process itself underexplored. The lifecycle has been influential in catching up studies. The catching up cycle (Lee & Malerba, 2017) is an exemplar application of the lifecycle paradigm and captures a latecomer’s stages of emerging, catching up, forging ahead, and ultimately falling behind. The teleology process family is manifested in catching up investigations, through the taxonomy of path-creating, path-skipping, path-following, and leapfrogging (Lee & Lim, 2001). The transition from OEM to OBM is an evolutionary process that necessitates knowledge acquisition and building capabilities.

The four-category families (Van de Ven, 1992) of Process Theory that present various logics are viewed as foundations for the paradigms in this study. Ratcliffe (1983, p.165) defines “paradigm” as “a way of ordering and simplifying the perceptual complexity by making fundamental assumptions about the nature of the process.” Diversities in the catching up process are expressed by the goods and technologies that coexist as a result of the disjointed technical leading forces. Coexistence is simply existing together at the same time and place. However, species discovered together in a local community are not necessarily justified as a coexistence phenomenon (Siepielski & McPeek, 2010), but rather an equilibrium state between competitions (Huston, 1994).

Cypher (2000, p.991) defines coexistence in management literature as “the ability of one system to perform a task in a given (shared) environment where other systems may or may not be using the same rules.” Lansford et al. (2001) enriched this definition further with their research on the interference between two technologies, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, with two types of coexistence: collaborative and non-collaborative. We then assume that the concept of coexistence can be integrated into the TCU process as a new paradigm. Several product generations can coexist simultaneously in space or time, while respecting their fitness and niche differences in harmony where positive progress is maintained for all involved parties. In the occasion of merger and acquisition to enhance the company’s competitiveness, post-springboard coordination aims at integrating the new resource bundles into the parent company’s strategic blueprint (Luo and Tung, 2007, 2018).This theory demonstrates the coexistence in an international expansion context.

Currently, a consensus in favor of the catching up paradigm has yet to emerge among periodical studies. Only a few studies on the TCU at the industrial level in emerging economies have been conducted. Despite this, little is known regarding the TCU process as a research objective or unit of analysis, which could enrich our understanding of industrial change. As a result, to gain a more complete explanation of the system of assumptions, events, and values in the TCU process, we will continue to apply process thinking to analyze the industrial TCU in China’s emerging economy.

Methodology

Given the research question of “how does an industrial-level technological catching up process develop?” an inductive case study serves as a suitable method for expanding our understanding of the catching up process through building theory (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). In addition, the research gap identified in this study falls under the appropriate case study categories. Precisely, we delve into the paradigm of the industrial TCU process. This is because it is not sufficiently answered by the established Catching up Theory and Process Theory. As a result, we designed and implemented a case study methodology to achieve theory elaboration that contributes to the previously indicated theoretical perspectives while also broadening their boundaries.

Sampling

To enhance the reliability of our research, we adopt nested sampling (Eisenhardt, 1989). This technique complements our investigation into the catching up process on the industrial level and focuses on companies’ behaviors. Nested sampling integrates catching up at many research levels. In addition, the firm-level cases nested within the industrial-level cases restrict superfluous variants, enabling the cases to focus on the most significant events.

The inconsistent development status and processes of China’s auto parts manufacturing industries provide a variety of process paradigms for our investigation. In addition, auto parts manufacturing is viewed as a subsidiary business whose development is governed by the automobile manufacturing industry. Its catching up process is constrained by automobile manufacturing and adapts to the characteristics of the broader manufacturing industry. According to the regulations of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the manufacturing sector includes numerous subsidiary industries. The TCU process, utilized in the auto parts manufacturing industrial sector, serves as our empirical setting. Nine companies were chosen to represent the Chinese auto parts manufacturing industry. To provide further supplementary information, eight automotive manufacturers served by the selected auto parts manufacturers, and four consulting firms who understand well the developments of the auto parts and automotive manufacturers were also selected. These are located in the western, southern, central, and eastern regions of China and include the cities of Wuhan, Zhengzhou, Wuxi, Suzhou, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Chongqing, Ningbo, and Guangzhou. These companies have experienced catching up, which corresponds with our research design requirements.

Data collection

Primary data is collected by conducting semi-structured interviews. We obtained 32 interviews in all. From July to August 2017, 16 on-site interviews were performed. The following pre-requisites for the interviewees were required: experience, tenure, position, and knowledge of the TCU within their industrial sector. Five highly qualified researchers recorded and transcribed each interview into text. In accordance with research ethical protocols (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018), prior to obtaining their consent, we informed the respondents of the research’s intention and procedure. Their identities are safeguarded through confidentiality. Based on this data, we depict a general view of the catching up process in the automobile parts industry sector. Between June and August 2021, 16 additional interviews were conducted virtually. These additional interviews provide further details about the industrial catching up process. The details of these interviews are found in Table 1.

For secondary data, we selected 26 industrial reports, including those from press media, expert opinion articles, and one security offering application. In addition, public websites and companies’ intranets allowed us to access and gather further information. These secondary sources of data enable us to verify and complement the respondents’ information as well as triangulate our database. For information about these secondary data sources, please refer to Appendix 4.

Data analysis

Nvivo11.0 was used for data analysis. To seize the interviewees’ original positions and opinions while maintaining the integrity of the initial data coding, open coding, also known as in-vivo coding, was applied (Gioia et al., 2013). More attention is paid to capturing key words and expressions of distinct stages as well as obvious trajectory changes. This distinguishes them according to their traits and characteristics. The exploratory coding method is followed by axial coding, which involves examining and annotating the codes and extracting the key themes or categories corresponding to the research goal. The details of the axial coding procedure are detailed in Table 2. The key is to maintain an ongoing dialogue between the main empirical findings and theoretical concepts, before ultimately reverting to the prevailing code of Process Theory. In the secondary coding for the secondary or non-directly related codes, marginal processing is adopted for the theoretical model of the process.

Table 1

Interview information

Interview information

-> Voir la liste des tableaux

Table 2

Axial coding concepts, themes, and categorizations

Axial coding concepts, themes, and categorizations

-> Voir la liste des tableaux

Findings

In the auto parts manufacturing industry, different dominating forces drive various evolution types. As a supplier in this value chain of automotive manufacturing, auto parts manufacturers’ ability to catch up can be influenced by various events and activities that lead to different process options. Automotive manufacturers who master core technology dominate and set the pace for industrial catching up and technological innovation. Auto parts manufacturers risk losing bargaining power with automotive manufacturers and also face threats from entrants who may become future competitive rivals equipped with experience and advanced technologies. The auto parts industry is not solely dependent on the automotive manufacturing industry in terms of technology. With regards to plant location, auto parts manufacturers are following the lead of automotive manufacturers. This constitutes an industrial cluster. “Company A is doing business here (in Zhengzhou, China), so of course we have to follow it in order to be closer by. In this way, there are less transportation costs. Lower the cost, greater the competitiveness. ... Our automation also results from the requirements of automotive manufacturers” (Company D Interviewee 2, 2017).

Given the diversity of automotive components, multiple entities may dominate innovative catching up initiatives. Assembly is the primary operational activity for those OEM automotive manufacturers who lack ownership of intelligent properties. The founder of an automotive optical parts supplier states that: “regarding the auto parts we produce and supply, automotive manufacturers do not possess the core technology. Therefore, we, as an illumination system equipment manufacturer, have significant bargaining power and influence innovation” (Company N Interviewee 1, 2021).

Based on our analysis of the TCU processes, industries that follow the coexistence paradigm will fall into one of three possible states. Table 3 illustrates these three scenarios of coexistence.

Convergent Coexistence

Convergent coexistence depicts two curves sharing the same inflection point and later merging into a single flat line. This indicates that two generations of products have become homogeneous. This demonstrates a complete convergence of new and old generations of products and technologies. As one technology complements the other, one can completely supplant the other collaboratively.

Table 3

Coexistence paradigm

Coexistence paradigm

Note: “Market situation” stands for a general concept of a product or technology in one industry, which includes elements of market share, public awareness, competitiveness, etc. The initial generation actor represents the incumbent product or technology generation in one industry, while the new generation actor refers to an emerging one.

-> Voir la liste des tableaux

This kind of coexistence may arise in distinct products with homogeneous functionalities. For example, numerous auto parts manufacturers have steadily upgraded from OEM to OBM through experience and by initiating and launching their own R&D and design brands of parts to gain market share and catch up. However, “in the automotive aftermarket, there are original factory parts, but what we produce are the aftermarket spare parts” (Company E Interviewee 1, 2017). The term “aftermarket” refers to a series of business operations that center around various after-use needs and services in the automotive after-sales segment. The original factory parts, (which are produced by the automobile manufacturer itself or by an authorized OEM), can be marked with the vehicle manufacturer’s logo and original part number and used for vehicle assembly or in the automotive manufacturer’s exclusive aftermarket channel. The aftermarket spare parts, which are substitutes for spare parts from original manufacturers, are not authorized by the automotive manufacturer. As a result, in the context of Chinese auto parts manufacturers’ catching up strategy, the origin factory parts and aftermarket spare parts, these two types of products exemplify the convergent coexistence paradigm.

In addition, the commodity in the process of industrial catching up and technological upgrading is the parallel application of newer and older generations of technology and products. It is impossible to update production output all at once. Therefore, regular market trends and cost control must be monitored and considered. The founder of an automotive optical parts supplier elaborates on this scenario with examples of automobile headlights:

The first generation of our headlight products applies the halogen technology, which is a relatively new technology. Currently, the LED headlights are more common, as well as the more advanced laser headlights. Yet, the laser technology won’t eliminate the application of LED, xenon, and halogen technologies. Although laser and LED coverage are growing at the expense of xenon and halogen, the aftermarket still needs technical support for older generations and past components. The cars sold a decade ago still need these parts for after-sales service, although their demand has decreased

Company N Interviewee 1, 2021

Asymptotic Coexistence

In asymptotic coexistence scenarios, two curves become parallel but neither overlap nor meet. As a result, the older product generation’s market position continues to outperform the new.

New and old auto parts and accessories are independent of each other, and this relationship governs their coexistence in a non-collaborative mode. The development of the auto parts and accessories manufacturing industry’s development, as a supplementary industry within the automotive industry sector, is heavily influenced by the evolution of automotive products. As a result of the strategic changes of dominant customers, product lines should follow suit. Interviewee 1 from Company A shares their experience as: “we started utilizing our technology by providing saloon car parts. It was very demanding. Later, our main customer changed its focus to producing vans. Their products are high-class vans with car-technology accessory parts. According to different demands, our product lines are extended” (2017).

Originally focused on providing vehicle maintenance accessories, in the 1990s, the auto parts and accessories industry underwent a difficult and tortuous development process. This can be summarized as: “by the end of 2007, domestic parts and components could meet 80 percent of the localization needs.” (HC Group[1], 2009)

The entire automotive industry is transitioning from traditional fuel-powered vehicles to hybrids or pure renewable energy vehicles. According to an auto parts supplier representative: “traditional auto parts suppliers can barely pivot to produce EV parts…it is hard to follow the rhythm of an automotive manufacturer’s transition. The trend of EV poses a huge challenge to us” (Company P Interviewee 1, 2021).

Even though a new auto part product may not be the optimal solution for current demands, an obsolete accessory product may be necessary in some situations. This is a typical coexistence occurrence in the time dimension. Despite promising prospects, automotive conversion is still unregulated and devoid of industry standards.

Intersectional Coexistence

In the scenario of intersectional coexistence, after meeting at the same inflection point, the two curves diverge further from each other until becoming parallel flat lines. This indicates that the new generation product’s market position surpasses the previous one. The emerging product or technology outperforms the older one, and subsequently, the two generations stabilize in divergent coexistence. The automobile radio, as an anomaly in the technologically competitive market, is less developed and has retained its surprisingly lucrative content. This is despite competition from vehicles installing multifunctional smart entertainment systems.

This coexistence was verified in interviews with automotive representatives: “there is a decent progression as new technologies gradually mature. ...It takes a relatively long time for the share of new technologies to keep increasing. For instance, the engine (technology), from carburetor to EFI, takes decades. Now the carburetor technology is not (used) at all” (Company I Interviewee 1, 2021). “Decent progression” refers to deeply penetrating a much larger scale of market share. This results in an increase in the technology’s application.

Car radio and other in-vehicle infotainment systems installed in automobiles coexist as independent entertainment forms, and utilizing one precludes the use of the other.

Nowadays, the car functions are becoming varied. But some of the traditional functions remain. Taking the entertainment system as an example, it can now be connected to applications, but its traditional radio broadcast function is still installed. These are two separate systems. The latter one is particularly old, existing from the birth of the car, and the other is the result of constant updates. (Company L Interviewee 1, 2021)

Likewise, the same scenario is witnessed in the automotive battery manufacturing sector. An auto parts manufacturing company’s vice general manager discussed possible solutions for transitioning between new and obsolete technologies and products. As a result, an intersectional coexistence is forged:

Generally, production efficiency has been driven by the automotive manufacturers in our industry. Based on the user’s requirements, automotive manufacturers iterate the technology, which consequentially demand us (as auto suppliers) to provide fitting accessories. In this procedure, there is a transition phase where the newer generation replaces the previous. We update the technology following a cascade utilization. When a machine becomes obsolete by the wave of technological upgrading, we usually send it to a less developed region where some obsolete car series are still rolling, such as in Africa and the Middle East. Another option could be applying one (new) technology to the new generation of automotive and the other (old) to the aftermarket. (Company E Interviewee 1, 2021)

This situation is analogous to the evolutionary process and shares certain mutual traits regarding the emergence, growth, and expansion of the new generation. In contrast, in intersectional coexistence, the outmoded generation remains in the market rather than being phased out. The variety of auto parts and accessories is governed by diverse automotives. For instance, once certain types of vehicles cease to be manufactured, parts and accessories are still necessary. This is why imitation accessories are still produced for imported cars manufactured in the industry’s early years.

Discussions

Coexistence as a process paradigm

Process paradigms consist of three elements: a set of initial conditions, a function endpoint, and a changing process (Van de Ven, 1992; Langley et al., 2013). At the organizational level, organizational change paradigms can be categorized into predictive and explanatory subcategories. Lifecycle and teleology are two predictive paradigms that focus on the process’s endpoint. The explanatory group includes dialectic and evolutionary perspectives and focuses more emphasis on process shifts to offer valuable insights and explanations for the emergence and transformation connected to each process. This taxonomy logic is applied to the coexistence paradigm and classifies it as a newly recognized pragmatic paradigm. The coexistence paradigm incorporates all three elements of a process paradigm, but it largely focuses on explicating distinct endings and the contextual variables that impact those endings.

However, investigations of the taxonomy of predictive and explanatory subcategories focus on the process itself (Van de Ven, 1992), rather than the actors’ initiatives in the catching up process. From this perspective, we categorize the three identified paradigms into active and passive patterns. As demonstrated by Chinese telecommunication equipment providers (Fan, 2006), new entrants actively compete with incumbents in the TCU process of teleology and dialectic paradigms. New entrants pursue incumbents for their own strategic purposes, such as acquiring a competitive position or exploiting a competitive advantage. However, the coexistence paradigm centers more on external forces. As a result of the initial conditions, economic environment or government intervention, actors in those paradigms are driven to catch up and adopt a different trajectory (Shin, 2017; Miao et al., 2018). As previously described, coexistence is more likely to be determined by foreign and domestic environments, policies, market characteristics, and, ultimately, results.

As a radical growth strategy, catching up is often accompanied by new technologies, market demands, and legislation (Lee & Malerba, 2017). Under this premise, the original development trajectory of the industry is constrained by various issues, such as failure to update in time or not yet eliminated through selection. The ongoing trajectory may be folded as a result of path-skipping, leapfrogging (Lee & Lim, 2001), or an overlap with the new trajectory. The springboard perspective further provides the argumentation of the process of catching up by eliminating the latecomer disadvantages can be spiral, which is non-linear (Luo and Tung, 2018). The coexistence of development paradigms is highly likely in these circumstances. Industry transformation is a complex of intra-industry organizational changes that are driven and dominated by the industry’s pioneering leaders (Mowery & Nelson, 1999; Hain et al., 2020). Accordingly, we believe that structural inertia (Hannan & Freeman, 1984) inside an industry is the primary precondition for coexistence, while the speed of learning and renewal may serve as the boundary condition. By continuing with the notion of an ecological niche (Silvertown, 2004), we argue that the type of coexistence of development paradigms depends not only on the differentiated use of resources but also on the temporal and spatial differentiation of products and technologies. Asymptotic coexistence, or intersectional coexistence, will occur when there is a greater degree of differentiation between older products and technologies and more recent ones, and when there is a lesser degree of substitutability. Furthermore, the degree of substitution is larger when there is a low degree of differentiation. Convergent coexistence is formed when both old and new technologies and products coexist in a stable environment. On the contrary, coexistence that is precluded by competition leads to a more dominant position. This results in the more efficient use of resources, asymptotic coexistence and intersectional coexistence.

Coexistence and technological catching up paths

Practitioners use catching up to achieve two possible objectives: minimizing and overcoming the latecomer disadvantages and leveraging and maximizing the latecomer advantages (Cho et al., 1998). Catching up in all three coexisting scenarios requires more than merely adopting new technologies or imitating the leader’s path. Instead, it is determined by institutional factors, market demand structure, and dynamic competitive advantage creation (Lee & Malerba, 2017; Morrison & Rabellotti, 2017). The coexistence paradigm is equally focused on all three paths of following, skipping, and creating (Lee & Lim, 2001). It is more akin to a niche strategic paradigm that strikes a balance between overcoming disadvantages and building advantages. As a result, we recognize coexistence as a pragmatic paradigm with predictive and explanatory logic. In addition, the coexistence paradigm includes all three scenarios and mirrors Jin and von Zedtwitz’s (2008) notion that the catching up stages (Kim, 1980) can be covered simultaneously.

To achieve convergent coexistence, latecomers adopt imitative strategies. The principle of this catching up is usually to establish an equifinality with the forerunner, which is generally accomplished through acquisition and assimilation (Kim, 1980). Path-following catching up is more likely to result in asymptotic coexistence. Latecomers in this situation typically rely on duplicative learning from forerunners. This does not result in perfect convergence, let alone forging ahead (Malerba & Nelson, 2011; Miao et al., 2021). New generations advance in intersectional coexistence via a skipped or newly devised path of catching up innovation (Lee & Lim, 2001). Intersectional coexistence manifests a comprehensive picture of multiple catching up cycles (Lee & Malerba, 2017), in which fast-developing latecomers emerge and grow by exploiting windows of opportunity created by discontinuity in institutions, technology, and market demand (Landini et al., 2017; Binz et al., 2020). In particular, the intersectional coexistence aligns with some successful latecomer firms which implement the springboard strategy to enter and develop in the global market (Luo and Tung, 2007, 2018). For EMNEs, duplicative learning from international leaders or mature MNEs (from more established advanced countries) can help those latecomer firms overcome their latecomer disadvantages in the early stage of catching up, while path-skipping and path-creating efforts are more risk-taking actions when facing more direct competition from the mature MNEs after entering the global market (in the late stage of catching up).

Therefore, the three coexisting categories are not static but rather evolve and interact. These three coexistence situations can stand alone and explain the catching up paradigm. Meanwhile, from a dynamic perspective, it is feasible for the three paradigms morph into each other. For example, after decades of catching up, the broad category of Chinese automotive manufacturing has gradually transitioned from asymptotic coexistence to convergent coexistence. From our second round of interviews, we determined that the electric vehicle manufacturing sector (which emerged vigorously during the early stage of development) has forged ahead and surpassed other traditional automotive manufacturers. This has resulted in a situation of intersectional coexistence.

The state of coexistence and its progression are affected by both internal and external aspects of catching up. Knowledge base (Mu & Lee, 2005; Lee, 2013), technological capabilities (Guo & Zheng, 2019; Hansen & Lema, 2019), and learning capabilities (Kim, 1998; Malerba & Nelson, 2011) are key internal factors influencing the TCU process. For external aspects, we contend that external environmental factors such as institutional, technological, and market-related macro-level aspects are significant for latecomers as they may create windows of opportunity (Perez & Soete, 1988; Shin, 2017; Giachetti & Marchi, 2017; Lee & Malerba, 2017; Lema, Fu, & Rabellotti, 2020). However, these external forces may not be the critical ones causing the divergent categories of the company’s coexistence within the same industry. It is more likely because of the focal firm’s capabilities to recognize and seize the windows of opportunity that lead to the different coexistence paradigms.

Conclusion

This study analyses the TCU process in the context of the Chinese auto parts manufacturing industry. In addition to the conventional process families, we establish a new paradigm, coexistence, which is identified as a pragmatic paradigm that considers both predictive states and explanatory construction. As a result, this study elaborates on paradigms of the TCU process in an emerging market’s manufacturing sectors.

Contributions

This study has twofold theoretical contributions. First, our study responds to a call for more research into the potential variations of catching up strategies (Miao et al., 2018). Our findings significantly complement existing research on catching up processes. For example, Malerba and Nelson (2011) argue that the catching up process is a learning process, despite the fact that catching up procedures have not been thoroughly examined or analyzed. We pay attention to the nature of the catching up process by analyzing it as a paradigm shift, which deepens our understanding of the catching up process. Second, our results of three categories of coexistence, namely, the convergent, asymptotic, and intersectional coexistence offer new insights into catching up literature and international business studies focusing on latecomers. In particular, the intersectional coexistence, showing how latecomers develop from the existing market (such as the home market of the latecomer firms or emerging markets) to the new market (such as the global market or more established advanced countries), is consistent with the springboard strategy of emerging market multinational corporations (Luo and Tung, 2007, 2018). We gain new insights into catching up processes by applying the process thinking paradigms (Langley, 2007; Langley et al., 2013) to industrial analysis. Our findings on coexistence have been exclusively identified at the industrial level and complement the organization’s transformational paradigms.

Implications

Anticipating an ideal coexistence situation illuminates the strategic planning and implementation of the necessary catching up. Policymakers must carefully formulate industrial development policies and guide the paths of their domestic industries or firms. As the main logic of catching up is to close the gaps between latecomers and leaders, latecomers can initiate their own catching up strategies with pre-determined objectives pertaining to the various coexisting scenarios. However, as latecomer industries mature, they may pose a threat to industry leaders and become their competitors. To differentiate themselves from the incumbents, latecomers will be confronted with the conflicting nature of exploration or exploitation of their current business. Such a predicament necessitates that latecomers to clearly position their products and technologies. Moreover, during the TCU process, emergent industries and enterprises may coexist with established or older ones. In addition, the corporate’s springboard acts require fine orchestration of the established and newly integrated resources of their coexistence. Such adjustments in the catching up process should come as no surprise to policymakers, who may be keen to attain industrial dominance. This may include the implementation of advanced technological applications. For developing countries, such as China, there are still some bottom-of-the-pyramid markets, traditional industries, or relatively old technologies that can satisfy the local market demand. However, applying new technology is too expensive. Investigating the auto parts manufacturing industry reveals how a supportive industry evolves in reaction to the waves generated by its dominating industry. In real-world practice, it serves as an empirical reference, and is especially relevant for similar industries in emerging economies.

Limitations and future research

In our study, interviewees were invited to share their past experiences, which may have introduced potential retrospective bias (Golden, 1997). Despite triangulating the interview data with secondary sources, many industries’ early periods may still warrant further evidence. Furthermore, while we acknowledge the distinction between organizations and industries, we did not devote sufficient time to explicating the differences between organizational and industrial change. Even though we followed the process of analyzing the change phenomena and utilized the same definition of “process” further analysis of the differences between organizations and industry could strengthen and reinforce our conclusion. Endogenous bias may exist as a result of multiple technological interactions across different sectors. In the future, the coexistence paradigm’s stability will require more evidence from longitudinal empirical research of a selected industry whose catching up process has been successfully fulfilled. More importantly, achieving catching up appears to be a continuous process. As latecomers will always emerge, how to build capabilities and seize windows of opportunity to gain industrial leadership is worthy of further research.