|
on Economics of Strategic Management |
|
Issue of 2019‒11‒04
seven papers chosen by João José de Matos Ferreira Universidade da Beira Interior |
| By: | Ksenia Gonchar (National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow); Maria Kristalova (Bremen University and Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena) |
| Abstract: | This paper studies how innovation strategies of Russian manufacturing firms affect various features of firm performance. A multi stage model is used, which relates the firm's decision to undertake R&D to its innovation output, technical efficiency, labor productivity, and growth. We also include imports into the knowledge production function, because catching up economies may adopt technologies embodied in imported hardware. Additionally, we link productivity and innovation output to survival. We find that both types of knowledge input - R&D and imports - strongly determine innovation. Innovations yield the strongest performance return in the case of catching up to technological frontier. Product innovation is more beneficial than process innovation in all performance features except for labor productivity. However, higher efficiency does not improve the growth rates or survival time of manufacturing firms. Taken together, these results show that innovation is not uniformly rewarded across all features of firm performance. |
| Keywords: | innovation, productivity, growth, survival, Russia |
| JEL: | C30 D24 O30 |
| Date: | 2019–02–25 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2019-001&r=all |
| By: | Holger Graf (Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Economics Department); Tom Broekel (University of Stavanger, Business School, Stavanger, Norway, and Centre for Regional and Innovation Economics, University of Bremen, Germany) |
| Abstract: | Cluster policies are often intended and designed to promote interaction in R&D among co-located organisations, as local knowledge interactions are perceived to be underdeveloped. In contrast to the popularity of the policy measure little is known about its impact on knowledge networks, because most scientific evaluations focus on impacts at the firm level. Using the example of the BioRegio contest, we explore cluster policy effects on local patent co-application and co-invention networks observed from 1985 to 2013, in 13 German regions. We find that the initiative increases network size and innovation activities during the funding period but not afterwards. The impact of the BioRegio contest on network cohesion is moderate. In contrast, general project-based R&D subsidisation is found to support cohesion more robustly. |
| Keywords: | Cluster Policy, Knowledge Networks, Network Analysis, Patent Data, Regional Innovation, Policy Evaluation |
| JEL: | O31 Z13 |
| Date: | 2019–10–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2019-007&r=all |
| By: | Uwe Cantner (Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany); James A. Cunningham (Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom); Erik E. Lehmann (University of Augsburg, Germany); Matthias Menter (Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany) |
| Abstract: | The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has been used as a framework to explain entrepreneurial activities within regions and industrial sectors. Despite the usefulness of this approach, the concept is under-theorized, especially with regard to the evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The current literature is lacking a theoretical foundation that addresses the development and change of entrepreneurial ecosystems over time and does not consider the inherent dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems that lead to their birth, growth, maturity, decline and re-emergence. Taking an industry lifecycle perspective, this paper addresses this research gap by elaborating a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem lifecycle model. We propose that an ecosystem transitions from an entrepreneurial ecosystem, with a focus on new firm creation, towards a business ecosystem, with a core focus on the internal commercialization of knowledge, i.e. intrapreneurial activities, and vice versa. Our dynamic model thus captures the oscillation that occurs among entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs through the different phases of an ecosystem's lifecycle. Our dynamic lifecycle model may thus serve as a starting point for future empirical studies focusing on ecosystems and provide the basis for a further understanding of the interrelatedness between and co-existence of new and incumbent firms. |
| Keywords: | Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, Lifecycles, Dynamism, Transition, Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O33 |
| Date: | 2019–10–18 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2019-008&r=all |
| By: | Nikolay Chichkanov (National Research University Higher School of Economics) |
| Abstract: | Despite the growing interest to the field of coproduction from the service-dominant logic literature, this concept is still being emerging and most of the existing papers do not provide any empirical evidence. The aim of the study is to investigate whether those KIBS firms that involve their customers in coproduction of services are more innovative. This paper explores the relationships between a set of innovation drivers and implementation of innovations in KIBS based on a sample of 441 firms operating in Russia. The results show that coproduction of services increases the possibility of both technological and non-technological innovations in KIBS to be implemented. This finding suggests that in addition to the service offerings quality improvement, coproduction of KIBS also acts as an innovation driver, which requires an attention from innovation managers |
| Keywords: | KIBS, coproduction, client involvement, innovation, innovation drivers |
| JEL: | O30 O31 |
| Date: | 2019 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:100sti2019&r=all |
| By: | Colin Davis; Ken-ichi Hashimoto |
| Abstract: | We study the effects of import competition on industry locations patterns in a small open economy with two regions. Domestic productivity growth converges to the international rate through firm-level investment in process innovation. With firms locating production and innovation in their lowest cost locations, the concentration of industry in the larger region is linked with firm-level innovation through an import competition effect that is increasing in the market share of imported goods and the productivity differential of domestic firms with the rest of the world. We show that increased import competition, through either a larger number of imported goods or a faster international rate of productivity growth, leads to greater industry concentration by reducing domestic market entry and decreasing the relative productivity of domestic firms. We also consider the implications of improved regional and international economic integration. |
| Date: | 2019–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1066&r=all |
| By: | Grumiller, Jan |
| Abstract: | This paper contributes to debates regarding the lack of theorization of the state and the overemphasis on lead firms in studies of global value chains (GVCs) and global production networks (GPNs). This paper combines the GVC/GPN frameworks with a strategic-relational approach (SRA), a SRA conceptualization of the developmental state, and literature about the embeddedness of firms. Empirically, the paper analyzes the conflictual relationship between firms and the state's strategies that structure and re-structure the development, industrial policy regime, and GVC/GPN integration of the Ethiopian leather and leather products (LLP) industry. |
| Keywords: | global value chains,developmental state,embedded autonomy,network embeddedness |
| Date: | 2019 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:oefsew:60&r=all |
| By: | Bräuer, Richard; Mertens, Matthias; Slavtchev, Viktor |
| Abstract: | This study analyses empirically the effects of import competition on firm productivity (TFPQ) using administrative firm-level panel data from German manufacturing. We find that only import competition from high-income countries is associated with positive incentives for firms to invest in productivity improvement, whereas import competition from middle- and low-income countries is not. To rationalise these findings, we further look at the characteristics of imports from the two types of countries and the effects on R&D, employment and sales. We provide evidence that imports from high-income countries are relatively capital-intensive and technologically more sophisticated goods, at which German firms tend to be relatively good. Costly investment in productivity appears feasible reaction to such type of competition and we find no evidence for downscaling. Imports from middle- and low-wage countries are relatively labour-intensive and technologically less sophisticated goods, at which German firms tend to generally be at disadvantage. In this case, there are no incentives to invest in innovation and productivity and firms tend to decline in sales and employment. |
| Keywords: | productivity,multi-product firms,import competition |
| JEL: | D22 D24 F10 F14 F60 F61 L25 |
| Date: | 2019 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:iwhdps:202019&r=all |