Studying Complementarities between Modes of Innovation Strategies in Transition Economies

Berulava, George and Gogokhia, Teimuraz (2016): Studying Complementarities between Modes of Innovation Strategies in Transition Economies.

Abstract

This paper explores the existing interrelationships between the firm’s innovation activities and productivity performance as well as studies complementarities among innovation strategies in transition economies. Specifically, on the basis of BEEPS V dataset and using extended CDM model, we have investigated the existence of possible complementarities between various types of innovation modes (product, process, marketing and organizational innovations) in their impact on the firm’s productivity. The traditional CDM framework was modified through accounting for the simultaneous occurrence of different types of innovation inputs - in-house and out-house knowledge generation activities - and through the estimation of their joint effects on various modes of innovation. In compliance with the results of previous studies, we find that CDM model properly describes the existing interrelations between the firm’s innovation activity and its productivity performance in transition economies. In particular, our results show that the firm’s decisions on in-house and out-house knowledge development processes are interdependent. The study results suggest that implementation of internal R&D strategy can stimulate not only technological innovations but non-technological innovative activity as well. However, we find that external knowledge acquisition strategy has positive and statistically significant effect on innovation output only when the firm’s innovation mix incorporates non-technological novelties. Our results show that only those modes of innovation output combinations that assume all the types of innovations and/or the combination of process and non-technological innovations have positive and statistically significant impact on the firm’s productivity. Another vital point of this analysis is that conducting either product or process innovation in isolation will result in a negative productivity performance. The important contribution of this paper is that it tests for complementarity between innovation strategies of firms in transition economies. Our tests reveal complementarity between the following two combinations of innovations: product/process and process/non-technological innovations. The key policy implication of our findings is that while performing all the three innovation modes jointly has a positive impact on firm’s performance, economically preferred options are: either to choose pure technological innovation strategy (product&process mode) or to perform strategy focused on organizational restructuring (process/non-technological mode).

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: R&D, external knowledge acquisition, innovation, productivity, CDM model, complementarity, transition economies
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C12 - Hypothesis Testing: General; L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior > L25 - Firm Performance: Size, Diversification, and Scope; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O12 - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; P - Economic Systems > P3 - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions > P31 - Socialist Enterprises and Their Transitions

References

1. Arora, A. and A. Gambardella (1990). “Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology.” Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, pp: 361-379.

2. Arora, A. and A. Gambardella (1994). “Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 24 (1), pp: 91-114.

3. Arvanitis Spyros, Boris Lokshin, Pierre Mohnen and Martin Wörter (2013). “Impact of external knowledge acquisition strategies on innovation – A comparative study based on Dutch and Swiss panel data.” KOF Working Papers No. 325, January, Swiss Economic Institute.

4. Ballot G´erard, Fathi Fakhfakh, Fabrice Galia, Ammon Salter. (2011) “The Fateful Triangle Complementarities between product, process and organizational innovation in the UK and France.” TEPP Working Paper, No 2011-05.

5. Baptista, R. and Swann, P. (1998). “Do firms in clusters innovate more?”, Research Policy, 27, pp: 525-540.

6. Belderbos, R., Carre, M., and Lokshin, B. (2006). “Complementarity in R&D Cooperation Strategies.” Review of Industrial Organization, vol. 28, pp: 401-426.

7. Benavente, J.M., (2006). “The Role of Research and Innovation in Promoting Productivity in Chile,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), pp: 301-315.

8. Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R. (2006). “In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition.” Management science, 52 (1), pp: 68-82.

9. Chudnovsky, D., Lopez, A., and Pupato, G., (2006). “Innovation and Productivity in Developing Countries: A Study of Argentine Manufacturing Firms Behavior (1992-2001),” Research Policy, 35(2), pp: 266-288.

10. Cohen, W. and D. Levinthal (1989). “Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D.” The Economic Journal, vol. 99 (Sep.), pp: 569-596.

11. Cohen, W. and S. Klepper. (1996). “A Reprise of Size and R&D.” Economic Journal, 106, pp: 925-951.

12. Conte, Andrea and Marco Vivarelli (2013). “Succeeding in Innovation: Key Insights on the Role of R&D and Technological Acquisition Drawn from Company Data.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 7671, October.

13. Cozzarin, B. P., and Percival, J. C. (2006). “Complementarities between organizational strategies and innovation.” Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 15 (3), pp: 195-217.

14. Crepon, B., Duguet, E., and Mairesse, J., (1998). “Research, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), pp: 115-158.

15. Crespi, Gustavo and Zuniga, Pluvia, (2012). “Innovation and Productivity: Evidence from Six Latin American Countries,” World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pp: 273-290.

16. Doran, J. (2012). “Are differing forms of innovation complements or substitutes?” European Journal of Innovation Management, 15 (3), pp: 351-371

17. EBRD (2014). EBRD Transition Report 2014: Innovation in Transition. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Available at: http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/transition/tr14.pdf

18. Freeman, C. (1991). “Networks of Innovators: A Synthesis of Research Issues.” Research Policy, pp: 499-514.

19. Friesenbichler, Klaus and Michael Peneder (2016). “Innovation, competition and productivity: firm level evidence for Eastern Europe and Central Asia,” WIFO Working Papers, No 516. http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/58776

20. Green H. William., (2003). Econometric analysis. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

21. Griffith, R., Huergo, E., Mairesse, J., and Peters, B., (2006). “Innovation and Productivity Across Four European Countries,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4), pp: 483-498.

22. Griliches, Zvi. (1979), “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth”, Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), pp: 92-116.

23. Habiyaremyev A. and W. Raymond (2013). “Transnational Corruption and Innovation in Transition Economies,” United Nations University, UNU-MERIT Working Papers, № 2013-050.

24. Hakansson, H. (1987). “Product development in networks.” in Håkansson, H. (ed.), Industrial Technological Development: A Network Approach, Croom Helm: London.

25. Hakansson, H. and Lundgren, A. (1995), “Industrial Networks and Technological Innovation,” in Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective, Moller Kristian and Wilson David T. (ed.),. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp: 291-320.

26. Hall, B. and J. Mairesse, (2006). “Empirical Studies of Innovation in the Knowledge Driven Economy: An Introduction,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 15, Issues 4/5, pp: 289-299.

27. Hall, B.H. (2011). “Innovation and productivity.” Nordic Economic Policy Review, Number 2/2011, pp: 167-203.

28. Janz, N., Loof, H., and Peters, B., (2004). “Firm Level Innovation and Productivity – Is There a Common Story Across Countries,” Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2, pp: 184-204.

29. Kraft, K. (1990). “Are Product- and Process-Innovations Independent of Each Other?” Applied Economics, 22(8), pp: 1029 - 1038.

30. Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006), “Open for Innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovative performance among U.K. manufacturing firms.” Strategic Management Journal, 27, pp: 131-150.

31. Leeuwen, George Van, and Shikeb Farooqui. (2008). “ICT, innovation and productivity.” In Eurostat “Information society: ICT impact assessment by linking data from different sources., pp: 222-239.

32. Loof, H. and Heshmati, A., (2006). “On the Rreationship between Innovation and Performance: A Sensitivity Analysis,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4/5), pp: 317-344.

33. Loof, H., Heshmati, A., Apslund, R., and Naas, S-O., (2003). “Innovation and Performance in Manufacturing Industries: A Comparison of the Nordic Countries,” International Journal of Management Research, 2, pp: 5-36.

34. Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., and Kremp, E., (2005). “The Importance of R&D and Innovation for Productivity: A Reexamination in Light of the 2000 French Innovation Survey,” Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 79/80, pp: 489-529.

35. Martinez-Ros, E. (2000). “Explaining the Decisions to Carry out Product and Process Innovations: The Spanish Case.” The Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 10(2), pp: 223-242.

36. Martínez-Ros, E., & Labeaga, J. (2009). “Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities.” European Management Review, 6(1), pp: 64-75.

37. Masso, J. and P. Vahter (2008). “Innovation and Firm Performance in a Catching-up Economy.” European Journal of Development Research, Vol 20, No. 2, pp: 240-261.

38. Masso, J. and P. Vahter (2012). “The link between innovation and productivity in Estonia's services sector,” The Service Industries Journal, vol.32(16) December, pp: 2527-2541.

39. McFadden D. L., (1984). Econometric Analysis of Qualitative Response Models. In Handbook of Econometrics, Volume II, edited by Z. Griliches and M. D. Intriligator, Ch. 24. pp.1396-1446.

40. Milgrom P. and Shannon C. (1994). “Monotone Comparative Statics.” Econometrica, vol. 62, n.1, pp: 157-180.

41. Milgrom, P. R., and Roberts, B. M. (1990). “The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy and Organization.” American Economic Review, 80, pp: 511-528.

42. Milgrom, P., and Roberts, J. (1995). “Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing.” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19 (2-3), pp: 179-208.

43. Miravete, E. and Pernías, J. (2006). “Innovation complementarity and scale of production.” Journal of Industrial Economics, 54 (1), pp: 1-29.

44. Mohnen Pierre and Bronwyn H. Hall (2013). “Innovation and Productivity: An Update.” Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), pp: 47-65.

45. Mohnen, P., and Roller, L. (2005). “Complementarities in innovation policy.” European Economic Review, 49(6), pp: 1431-1450.

46. Nelson, R. (2000). “National innovation systems.” in Regional Innovation, Knowledge and Global Change, Acs, Z. (ed.), Pinter: London.

47. Pakes, Ariel and Zvi Griliches (1980),"Patents and R and D at the Firm Level: A First Report", Economics Letter, No. 5, pp: 377-381.

48. Parisi, Maria Laura, Schiantarelli, Fabio, and Sembenelli, Alessandro (2006). “Productivity, Innovation and R&D: Micro Evidence for Italy.” European Economic Review, Vol. 50, pp: 2037-2061.

49. Pavitt, K., Robson, M. and Townsend, J. (1987). “The size distribution of innovating firms in the UK: 1945-1983,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, pp: 297-316.

50. Percival, J. C., and Cozzarin, B. P. (2008). “Complementarities Affecting the Returns to Innovation.” Industry and Innovation, 15(4), pp: 371-392.

51. Pisano, G. (1990). “The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp: 153-176.

52. Polder, M., van Leeuwen, G., Mohnen, P. and Raymond, W. (2009), Productivity effects of innovation modes, Statistics Netherlands Discussion Paper 09033, The Hague.

53. Reichstein, T. and A. Salter (2006). “Investigating the Sources of Process Innovation among UK Manufacturing Firms.” Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 15(4), pp: 653 -682.

54. Roodman, D. (2011). “Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with CMP,” the Stata Journal, vol. 11 (November 2), pp: 159-206.

55. Rothwell, R. (1992). “Successful Industrial Innovation: Critical Factors for the 1990s.” R&D Management, 22, pp: 221-239.

56. Schmidt, T., and Rammer, C. (2007). “Non-technological and Technological Innovation.” In ZEW (Ed.), Discussion Paper: Centre for European Economic Research, 07-052.

57. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, U.S., Harvard University Press.

58. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper.

59. Thomas, R. and Ford, D. (1995), “Technology and Networks,” in Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective, Moller Kristian and Wilson David T. (ed.),. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp: 263-290.

60. Topkis, D.M. (1978). "Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice." Operations Research, 26, pp: 305-321.

61. Topkis, D.M. (1987). Activity optimization games with complementarity. European Journal of Operations Research, 28 (3), pp: 358-368.

62. Topkis, D.M. (1998). Supermodularity and Complementarity. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

63. Vakhitova G. and T. Pavlenko (2010). “Innovation and Productivity: A Firm Level Study of Ukrainian Manufacturing Sector.” Discussion Paper Series, DP27 June, Kyiv School of Economics& Kyiv Economics Institute.

64. Williamson, O. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: The Free Press.