1. Rapid innovation-based industries are defined as industries populated by New Technology-Based Firms (NTBFs), where NTBFs are defined as companies whose products are new technologies, are based on their own and others’ R&D effort to commercialize applications of new technology, or companies whose main revenue stream is based on R&D efforts to develop new technologies. For more on rapid innovation-based industrialization, see Breznitz, Dan, Innovation and the State: Political Choice and Strategies for Growth in Israel, Taiwan, and Ireland (New Haven, Conn., 2007)Google Scholar.

2. For more on the arguments of the networked polity, see Ansell, Christopher K., “The Networked Polity: Regional Development in Western Europe,” Governance 13, no. 2 (2000): 279–91Google Scholar; Levy, Jonah D., Tocqueville’s Revenge: State, Society, and Economy in Contemporary France (Cambridge, Mass., 1999)Google Scholar; Locke, Richard M., Remaking the Italian Economy (Ithaca, N.Y., 1995)Google Scholar; O’Riain, Sean, “The Flexible Development State: Globalization, Information Technology, and The ‘Celtic Tiger,’” Politics and Society 28, no. 2 (2000): 157–93Google Scholar; O’Riain, Sean, The Politics of High Tech Growth: Developmental Network States in the Global Economy (Cambridge, U.K., 2004)Google Scholar.

3. For some examples of the developmental state theories and their evolution, see Amsden, Alice, Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford, U.K., 1989)Google Scholar; Amsden, Alice, The Rise Of “The Rest”: Challenges to the West from Late Industrializing Economies (Oxford, U.K., 2001)Google Scholar; Amsden, Alice and Chu, Wan-Wen, Beyond Late Development: Taiwan’s Upgrading Policies (Cambridge, Mass., 2003)Google Scholar; Cheng, Tunjen, “Political Regimes and Developmental Strategies: South Korea and Taiwan,” in Manufacturing Miracles, eds. Gereffi, Gary and Wyman, D. (Princeton, N.J., 1990), 139–78Google Scholar; Chibber, Vivek, “Bureaucratic Rationalist and the Developmental State,” American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 4 (2002): 951–89Google Scholar; Doner, Richard F., Ritchie, Bryan K., and Slater, Dan, “Systemic Vulnerability and the Origins of Developmental States: Northeast and Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective,” International Organization 59 (Spring 2005): 327–61Google Scholar; Evans, Peter, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton, N.J., 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, Peter and James Rauch, E., “Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects Of “Weberian” State Structure on Economic Growth,” American Sociological Review 64, no. 5 (1999): 748–65Google Scholar; Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York, 1985)Google Scholar; Johnson, Chalmers A., Miti and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975 (Stanford Calif., 1982)Google Scholar; Kohli, Atul, “Where Do High Growth Political Economies Come From? The Japanese Lineage of Korea’s ‘Developmental State,’” World Development 22, no. 9 (1994): 1269–93Google Scholar; O’Riain, The Politics of High Tech Growth; Richard, J. Samuels, , Rich Nation Strong Army (Ithaca, N.Y., 1994)Google Scholar; Richard, J. Samuels, , The Business of the Japanese State (Ithaca, N.Y., 1988)Google Scholar; Wade, Robert, Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of the Government in the East Asian Industrialization (Princeton, N.J., 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woo-Cumings, Meredith, ed., The Developmental State (Ithaca, N.Y., 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. On the case study method, see Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review 14, no. 4 (1989): 532–50Google Scholar; King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, N.J., 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pettigrew, Andrew, “Doing Qualitative Research,” paper presented at the British Academy of Management Conference, Milton Keynes, U.K., Sept. 1993Google Scholar; Ragin, Charles C., The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (Berkeley, Calif., 1987)Google Scholar; Ragin, Charles C., Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method, Sociology for a New Century (Thousand Oaks, Calif., 1994)Google Scholar; Evera, Stephen Van, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Ithaca, N.Y., 1997)Google Scholar; Yin, Robert K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5 (Thousand Oaks, Calif., 1994).Google Scholar

5. For examples of work in this tradition and its theoretical background, see Berger, Suzanne and Dore, Ronald, eds., National Diversity and Global Capitalism (Ithaca, N.Y., 1996)Google Scholar; Breschi, S. and Malerba, F., “Sectoral Innovation Systems: Technological Regimes, Schumpeterian Dynamics, and Spatial Boundaries,” in System of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, ed. Edquist, C. (London, 1997), 130–56Google Scholar; Cooke, Philip and Morgan, Kevin, The Associational Economy (New York, 1998)Google Scholar; Pepper Culpepper, D. and Finegold, David eds., The German Skills Machine: Sustaining Comparative Advantage in a Global Economy (Oxford, U.K., 2001)Google Scholar; Dore, Ronald Philip, British Factory, Japanese Factory: The Origins of National Diversity in Industrial Relations (Berkeley, Calif., 1973)Google Scholar; Fligstein, Neil, “Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions,” American Sociological Review 61 (Aug. 1996): 656–73Google Scholar; Fligstein, Neil, “The Structural Transformation of American Industry: An Institutional Account of the Causes of Diversification in the Largest Firms, 1919-1979,” in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, ed. Powell, Walter W. and Dimaggio, Paul (Chicago, 1991), 311–36Google Scholar; Hall, Peter and Soskice, David, eds., Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Oxford, U.K., 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Herrigel, Gary, Industrial Constructions: The Sources of German Industrial Power, Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, U.K., 1996), 9Google Scholar; Kitschelt, Herbert, “Industrial Governance Structures, Innovation Strategies, and the Case of Japan - Sectoral or Cross-National Comparative-Analysis,” International Organization 40, no. 1 (1991): 453–93Google Scholar; Lazonick, William, Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy (Cambridge, U.K., 1991)Google Scholar; Lester, Richard K. and Piore, Michael J., Innovation — the Missing Dimension (Cambridge, Mass., 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, ed., National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (London, 1992)Google Scholar; Nelson, R. Richard, ed., National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (New York, 1993)Google Scholar; North, Douglass, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge, U.K., 1990)Google Scholar; Piore, Michael J. and Sabel, Charles F., The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Powell, Walter W. and Dimaggio, Paul, eds., The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Samuels, Rich Nation Strong Army, Streeck, Wolfgang, “On the Institutional Conditions of Diversified Quality Production,” in Beyond Keynesianism: The Socio-Economics of Production and Full Employment, ed. Matzner, Egon and Streeck, Wolfgang (Aldershot, U.K., 1991), 21–61Google Scholar; Whitley, Richard, Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems (Oxford, U.K., 1999)Google Scholar; Ziegler, J. Nicholas, “Institutions, Elites, and Technological Change in France and Germany,” World Politics 47, no. 3 (1995): 341–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zysman, John, “Nations, Institutions, and Technological Development,” International Journal of Technology Management 12, no. (5-6) (1996): 651–78.Google Scholar

6. For more on global production networks, see Arndt, Sven W. and Kierzkowski, Henryk, eds., Fragmentation: New Production Patterns in the World Economy (Oxford, U.K., 2001)Google Scholar; Gereffi, Gary, “Commodity Chains and Regional Divisions of Labor in East Asia,” Journal of Asian Business 12, no. 1 (1996): 75–112Google Scholar; Gereffi, Gary, Humphrey, John, and Sturgeon, Timothy J., “The Governance of Global Value Chains,” Review of International Political Economy 12, no. 1 (2005): 78–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sturgeon, Timothy J., “Modular Production Networks: A New American Model of Industrial Organization,” Industrial and Corporate Change 11, no. 3 (2002): 451–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. For some of the basic work that established and developed this tradition, see Braczyk, Hans-Joachim et al., eds., Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World (London, 1998)Google Scholar; Carlsson, Bo, ed., Technological Systems and Economic Performance - the Case of Factory Automation (London, 1995)Google Scholar; Edquist, Charles, ed., Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions, and Organizations (London, 1997)Google Scholar; Lundvall, , ed., National Systems of Innovation (London, 1992)Google Scholar; Nelson, , ed., National Innovation Systems (London, 1993)Google Scholar; Nelson, Richard R. and Winter, Sidney G., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, Mass., 1982).Google Scholar

8. Central Bureau of Statistics, Development of Information Communication Technology in the Last Decade (Jerusalem, 2001)Google Scholar; Central Bureau of Statistics, National Expenditure of Civilian Research and Development 1989–1999 (Jerusalem, 2000)Google Scholar; Israel Association of Electronic and Information Industries, Israel Electronics Industries Profile (Tel Aviv, 2002)Google Scholar.

9. For more on the structure of bureaucracy, see Bowsher, C. A., “General Management Reviews: Building Government’s Capacity to Manage,” in Accountability and State Audit, ed. Friedberg, A., et al. (Jerusalem, 1991): 360–8Google Scholar; Deri, David, Political Appointments in Israel: Between Statism and Political Party-Ism [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv, 1993)Google Scholar; Heclo, Hugh, A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington (Washington, D.C., 1977)Google Scholar; Pfiffner, James P., “Political Appointees and Career Executives: The Democracy - Bureaucracy Nexus,” in Agenda for Excellence: Public Service in America, eds. Ingraham, Patricia W. and Kettl, Donald F. (Chatham, N.J., 1992): 48–65.Google Scholar

10. For a quick introduction to this tradition, see Rose, R., A House Divided: Political Administration in Britain Today (Glasgow, U.K., 1986)Google Scholar; Rose, R., The Political Status of Higher Civil Servants in Britain (Glasgow, U.K., 1981)Google Scholar.

11. OEM is a sub-contracting manufacturing relationship in which one side manufactures equipment for the other side to be sold under the second sides brand name and in accordance with the second sides detailed specifications. Original Design Manufacturing (ODM) is a subcontracting relationship in which the manufacturing side is also giving detailed and integrated design services to the brand name company, which supplies it with only high level design specifications. Own Brand Manufacturing (OBM) happens when the manufacturer is manufacturing products to be sold under its own brand.

12. For more on the Japanese bureaucracy, see Kim, Hyung-Ki et al., eds., The Japanese Civil Service and Economic Development: Catalysts of Change (New York, 1995)Google Scholar.