How Does Competition by Informal and Formal Firms Affect the Innovation and Productivity Performance in Peru? A CDM Approach

Alvarez, Lourdes and Huamaní, Edson and Coronado, Yngrid (2020): How Does Competition by Informal and Formal Firms Affect the Innovation and Productivity Performance in Peru? A CDM Approach. Published in: ECIE 2020 16th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship No. Academic Conferences and Publishing International ACPI (September 2020): pp. 61-68.

Abstract

Innovation is one of the main determinants to stimulate productivity. However, incentives to innovate may be affected by the level of competition. In particular, in developing countries, where informality is highly prevalent, formal firms have to face both types of competition: formal and informal. Previous studies have acknowledged a negative impact from competition (schumpeterian effect) but also, several recent studies have shown that competition could spur innovation (escape-competition effect). Given the importance of informal competition in developing countries, as Peru, where almost three out of four firms are informal and the intensity of investment in R&D+i activities is pretty low, this study aims to evaluate the impact of formal and informal competition, at the industrial level, on the whole innovation process and, expressly, on productivity for Peru. By using a CDM model, this study analyses how the intensity of formal and informal competition affects every stage of the innovation process. The CDM model makes possible to study four interrelated stages of the innovation process: i) the firms’ choice to engage with innovation, ii) the amount of resources invested in R&D+i activities, iii) the effects of R&D+i investments on innovation output, and iv) the impacts of innovation outcome on firms’ productivity. The model is estimated using firm-level data collected by the Peruvian National Innovation Survey 2018 and the National Business Survey 2018. Our main findings indicate that competition, both formal and informal, affects negatively the decision to engage in innovation. However, the relationship changes throughout the remaining stages of the innovation process. Whereas the informal competition affects negatively the whole innovation process (engage in innovation, intensity of R&D+I activities spending, innovation output and firms’ productivity) satisfying the Schumpeterian theory; formal competition seems to affect positively the intensity of R&D+i activities spending and also firms’ productivity, which can be explained as an escape-competition effect within the formal firms. In conclusion, meanwhile it is found that informal competition affects negatively the whole innovation process, formal competition could, instead, encourage formal firms’ willingness to invest more in R&D+i activities, increasing their productivity.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Competition, CDM model, informality, innovation, productivity
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E26 - Informal Economy ; Underground Economy; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M11 - Production Management; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O17 - Formal and Informal Sectors ; Shadow Economy ; Institutional Arrangements; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

References

Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., 2005. Competition and innovation: An inverted U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 120, No. 2 (May, 2005), 701-728. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25098750.

Aghion, P. and Howitt, P., 1998. Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Aghion, P., Akcigit, U. and Howitt, P., 2015. The Schumpeterian Growth Paradigm. Annual Review of Economics. Vol. 7, p.p. 557-575. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115412

Ahn, S., 2002. Competition, innovation and productivity growth: A review of theory and evidence. OECD Economics Department Working Paper 317. https://doi.org/10.1787/182144868160.

Amin, Mohammad; Ohnsorge, Franziska Lieselotte; Okou, Cedric Iltis Finafa, 2019. Casting a Shadow: Productivity of Formal Firms and Informality (English). Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 8945. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.

Castellacci, F., 2011. How does competition affect the relationship between innovation and productivity? Estimation of a CDM model for Norway. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 20 (7), 637-658. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2010.516535.

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), 115-158 https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599800000031

Crespi, G., and Zuniga, P. (2012). Innovation and productivity: evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development, Vol. 40 (2), p.p. 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.010

Geroski, . P., 1990. Innovation, technological opportunity and market structure. Oxford Economic Papers, 42, (3), 586-602.

Griliches, Z. and Pakes, A., 1980. Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters, Vol. 5, (4), 377-381

Hall, B. H., 2011. Innovation and productivity. National Bureau of Economic Research N° 17178, NBER Working Papers. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17178.

Hall, R. and Jones , C., 1999. Why do some countries produce so much more output than others?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, (1), 83-116.

Harris, J. C., 2014. The confounding influence of urban informality on innovation and production specialisation in production clusters: evidence from Nairobi. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Vol. 6 (6), p.p. 83-116.

National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI), 2018. Informal production and employment in Peru: satellite account of the informal economy 2007-2017. https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1589/libro.pdf

National Innovation Survey (ENIM), 2018. National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI).

National survey of companies (ENE), 2018. National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI).

Mendi, P. and Costamagna, R., 2016. Managing innovation under competitive pressure from informal producers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 114, p.p. 192-202. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.013

Muinelo-Gallo, L., 2012. Modelo estructural de función de producción. Un estudio empírico de la innovación en el sector manufacturero español. Economía Teoría y Práctica N° 36, p.p. 43-82. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0188-33802012000100003

Mulkay, B. (2019). How does competition affect innovation behaviour in french firms?. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. Vol. 51, p.p. 237-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.05.003

Nickell, S., 1996. Competition and corporate performance. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 104, (4), p.p. 724-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/262040

Porter, M., 1990. Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review 68, no. 2, p.p. 73–93.

Rouvine, P., 2002. R&D-productivity dynamics: causality, lags, and dry holes. Journal of Applied Economics. Vol. 5 (1) https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2002.12040573

Scherer, F., 1967. Market structure and the employment of scientists and engineers. American Economic Review. Vol. 57, No. 3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i331434. 68