Introduction As design has increasingly become regarded as a strategic tool that makes a critical contribution to enhancing competitiveness and economic success,1 a growing number of businesses now consider the use of design as a means of achieving their business goals. Governments, too, have embraced policies that encourage businesses to develop and implement new products and services through the use of design.2 Yet, despite the efforts of companies to expand their business into overseas markets with government support, achieving their goals in the rapidly changing competitive environment of the global marketplace and economy is becoming increasingly difficult.3 Researchers have proposed that the purpose of a national design policy is to ensure that the appropriate design support is provided for businesses to become globally competitive.4 Such research has analyzed the influence of design on global competitiveness;5 however, few researchers have addressed the influence of national design policy on global competitiveness either longitudinally or in relation to indigenous industry. In this paper we examine in two different countries (i.e., the U.K. and South Korea) the relationship between national design policies and industrial development, as evidenced through a government-supported design center’s strategy, activities, and industrial support. We also compare the two cases to understand national design policy and how it influences indigenous industry. These two countries have been selected because of the difference in the level of maturity in their “design” support (i.e., United Kingdom has a very mature Design Council, while the Korea Institute of Design Promotion (KIDP), in South Korea, is relatively new); yet similar in their design and innovation index ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report.6 Both countries also have been described as having a clear and effective design policy7 and have applied government design policy and design promotion programs that have intensified the role of design in international competition.8 It has also been suggested that the United Kingdom has a strong