|
on Small Business Management |
|
Issue of 2011‒01‒23
nine papers chosen by Joao Carlos Correia Leitao University of Beira Interior and Technical University of Lisbon |
| By: | Edwards, Mónica; Castro- Martinez, Elena; Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio |
| Abstract: | This paper examines co-operative innovation and research and development (R&D) behaviour between Argentine and Spanish firms. Based on theoretical perspectives from the literature, we surveyed a sample of 540 Argentine and Spanish firms believed to have cooperated for technological innovation. We present empirical evidence based on 104 firms of patterns of cooperation in several processes and out-puts, highlighting firm characteristics, the motives of the collaborating parties, types of partners and R&D and innovation activities, leadership, and obstacles to cooperation. Our results reveal that the determinants of success differ considerably among countries depending on the sector, the firm specific characteristics and funding. These differences have important implications for public policy and instruments to support R&D and innovation activities. |
| Keywords: | innovation, R&D; international cooperation; cooperation types; barriers; government funding programmes |
| Date: | 2010–12–13 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ing:wpaper:201013&r=sbm |
| By: | Kampik, Franziska; Dachs, Bernhard |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes cross-country differences in innovation behavior of subsidiaries of German multinational enterprises. The analysis is based on data from Community Innovation Survey (CIS4) and covers 16 European countries. We find considerable differences in innovation input intensity and innovation output intensity between German subsidiaries located in different European countries. Multivariate analysis reveals that these differences are largely related to firm characteristics. A significant relationship between firm-level innovation and host country characteristics can only be found for innovation output. |
| Keywords: | Internationalization of innovation; German multinational firms; innovation performance; Community Innovation Survey |
| JEL: | F23 O32 O31 |
| Date: | 2010–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:28102&r=sbm |
| By: | Peters, Bettina; Schmiele, Anja |
| Abstract: | Recent years have shown a surge of firms globalising their innovation activities in order to gain from international knowledge. This paper evaluates this strategy by investigating whether firms with international R&D are more innovative than firms doing R&D only in their home country. One main novelty is that we shed light on two competing hypotheses whether stronger dispersed international R&D activities hamper or stimulate innovation. Second, we employ two well-established market-based indicators for innovation (introduction of and sales growth rates due to new products) instead of looking at inventions (patents). Using German CIS data for about 2100 firms, the econometric results show that firms with international R&D are more likely to launch new products (firm and market novelties) than firms with home-based R&D only. They are also more successful in terms of higher sales growth with firm novelties. However, given the introduction of a market novelty, the location of R&D doesn't matter for the sales growth with market novelties. The results concerning the degree of R&D internationalisation are mixed: The likelihood of introducing firm novelties increases with a stronger dispersion of foreign R&D activities (for market novelties only up to a specific point). The relationship between degree of R&D internationalisation and innovation success turns out to be inverse u-shaped. -- |
| Keywords: | R&D,Internationalisation,Innovation performance,Decentralisation |
| JEL: | O32 F23 |
| Date: | 2010 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:10102&r=sbm |
| By: | Schmiele, Anja |
| Abstract: | This paper aims at analysing the risk of intellectual property (IP) infringements by competitors from abroad and in particular whether this risk is higher for international innovating firms. We distinguish three different types of IP infringements from abroad: the usage of firms' technical inventions, product piracy and copying of corporate names and designs. Our analysis rests on the German data from the Europe-wide Community Innovation Survey (CIS). We use a unique data set of about 900 observations which are retrieved from two survey waves. While the earlier wave contains information about international and domestic innovation activities the later wave reports IP infringements. In a second analysis, the likelihood of infringements from innovation host countries and no innovation host countries abroad is examined. Before the empirical analysis, an explorative study has been carried out in China with interviews of German firms with innovation activities in China and with a legal advisor for small and medium sized German enterprises. The results show that firms with international R&D activities are increasing their chances to lose technological knowledge to their local competitors abroad. R&D activities in countries with weak intellectual property rights increase the risk for all types of infringement. Infringements by competitors from the host country are driven by the production of innovations in this country. Export intensity is the major driver of infringements from no innovation host countries. R&D activities in China and North America also increase the risk of an infringement. However, firms that innovate only in their home country experience significantly more product piracy cases than internationally innovating firms. -- |
| Keywords: | R&D,innovation,internationalisation,intellectual property,infringement |
| JEL: | O32 O34 F23 |
| Date: | 2010 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:10099&r=sbm |
| By: | Henrekson, Magnus (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)); Sanandaji, Tino (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)) |
| Abstract: | In this introductory chapter to a collective volume,* we build on Baumol’s (1990) framework to categorize, catalog, and classify the budding research field that explores the interplay between institutions and entrepreneurship. Institutions channel entrepreneurial supply into productive or unproductive activities, which likely accounts for a great deal of the disparate economic development of nations. What’s more, entrepreneurship is not only influenced by institutions—entrepreneurs often shape institutions themselves. Entrepreneurship abiding by existing institutions is occasionally disruptive enough to challenge the foundations of prevailing institutions. Entrepreneurs also have the opportunity to evade institutions, which tends to undermine the effectiveness of the institutions in question, or cause them to change for the better. Lastly, entrepreneurs can directly alter institutions through innovative political entrepreneurship. Similar to business entrepreneurship, innovative political activity can be either productive or unproductive, depending on the entrepreneurs’ incentives. |
| Keywords: | Entrepreneurship; Innovation; Institutions; Property rights; Regulation; Self-employment |
| JEL: | H32 L50 M13 O31 P14 |
| Date: | 2010–10–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0853&r=sbm |
| By: | André van Stel; Ingrid Verheul; Hiroyuki Okamuro |
| Abstract: | Globalization and an increasing importance of knowledge in the production process cause many developed countries to move from a more 'managed' to a more 'entrepreneurial' economy in recent decades. In the former type of economy, large and incumbent firms play a dominant role, exploiting economies of scale in a relatively certain economic environment. In the latter type, small and new firms play an increasingly important role, introducing new products and services in highly uncertain economic environments while quickly adapting to rapidly changing consumer preferences. The speed of adjustment in this transition process from a managed to an entrepreneurial economy varies by country. In this paper we investigate the differences between a more 'managed' economy, Japan, characterized by relatively low levels of entrepreneurial activity, and a more 'entrepreneurial' economy, the Netherlands. Building on earlier work by Hartog et al. (2010), who explain cross-country differences in three measures of entrepreneurial activity using five broad groups of explanatory variables, we apply a decomposition analysis to better understand the differences in entrepreneurial activity between Japan and the Netherlands. We find that, in spite of higher levels of entrepreneurial activity in the Netherlands, the institutional framework in the Netherlands is considerably less favourable to entrepreneurship, compared to Japan. On the other hand, cultural differences between the Netherlands and Japan explain a substantial part of the difference in entrepreneurship rates between the two countries. |
| Date: | 2011–01–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:eim:papers:h201102&r=sbm |
| By: | Antti-Jussi Tahvanainen; Tuomo Nikulainen |
| Abstract: | For developed countries, continuous innovation has been a prerequisite for economic growth for some time. Because radical innovations often require considerable slack and freedom in researching the relevant underlying phenomena, universities are considered the primary loci for generating knowledge leading to radical leaps in the development of platforms on which future technologies build. Thus, to facilitate the improvement of premises for university research and its application in industry, much effort has been spent on understanding university innovation processes and the transfer of technology between universities and companies. Much of the research and the related discussions have been conducted on either the national, regional or organizational levels. The focus on institutional actors has largely orphaned another fundamentally important actor : the individual researcher. This report examines individual university researchers and their role in the commercialization of research in Finland. Based on a survey of roughly 2800 researchers active in different fields of science at 11 Finnish research universities, this report covers a variety of topics ranging from university-industry collaboration to ownership of intellectual property and the commercialization services provided to researchers. The primary theme uniting these topics, however, is the subjective motivation for researchers to engage in the commercialization of their research. Why do researchers cooperate with companies, and how do they expect to benefit from collaboration? What are the reasons why some researchers to commercialize their results, while others distance themselves from such endeavors? Do certain dedicated university services support researchers in their commercial ambitions or actually inhibit them? These are the specific questions this report seeks to descriptively answer. The results establish that commercial motives play only a minor role in the various activities in which researchers engage. For instance, potential commercial aspects have almost no impact on the choice of a researcher’s research orientation. Furthermore, direct industrial collaboration is relatively uncommon among researchers. Even those researchers that have experience with industry collaboration reported that collaboration mostly serves academic ends such as securing research funding and searching for new research ideas. In addition, only 10% of all researchers have received complementary business education. Given that approximately 40% of researchers are believed to have produced inventions with commercial potential, 10% seems a fairly small share. This is also reflected in the researchers’ clear lack of familiarity with the principles that govern the allocation of ownership rights to inventions that arise from academic research, a prerequisite to any commercial endeavors. In parallel with these findings, the propensity of researchers to commercialize their results is much less affected by economic factors such as potential economic returns than it is by altruistic, socio-cultural, or personal motives. This makes designing proper incentive mechanisms difficult. The three most important factors mentioned by inventors who have made the decision to facilitate the commercialization of their inventions include (i) the inventions’ potential to have a beneficial impact on society, (ii) the researchers’ ambition of self-fulfillment and (iii) securing funding for academic research. Societal goals and reasons related to pure intrinsic ambition seem to dominate other motives. It seems that commercialization and related economic aspects bear little value to researchers. Regarding support in commercialization, Finnish researchers are quite satisfied with the services provided to them by their respective research and innovation service units. Only a closer look at the possible needs of researchers and the degree that the service units match these needs through services reveals the true challenges regarding the operation of the units. In fact, the match between needs and provided services seems to be rather weak, and many researchers indicate that they do not need most of the services in the first place. This leads to only one conclusion : the service units are not an integral part of the university culture as yet. Being satisfied with services that do not match needs tells us that researchers have not yet embraced such services as a relevant part of their work or of the technology transfer process. To remedy this situation, much emphasis needs to be put on communicating the range of available services to the research community. This is a first step. The second step would be to design a set of services that address the true needs and ambitions of researchers and provide proper incentives for researchers to participate in the transfer of their research results. |
| Keywords: | commercialization of research, university-industry collaboration, motives for commercialization, challenges of commercialization, innovation support services |
| JEL: | O30 O38 O33 O34 |
| Date: | 2011–01–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rif:dpaper:1234&r=sbm |
| By: | Sugato Chakravarty (Purdue University); Meifang Xiang (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater) |
| Abstract: | We investigate the cross-country key factors of profit reinvestment decisions, using data compiled by the World Bank from over 7,000 businesses in 36 countries. We find that, compared to the security of property rights, it is a firm’s access to external financing that plays a significant role in a firm’s reinvestment decision in emerging economies. The extent of private ownership and the level of competition faced by firms are additional significant factors correlated with the reinvestment decision. Furthermore, we uncover a firm size effect in that the above factors driving firm reinvestment decision appears to impact small firms more than the relatively larger firms. Our findings complement, as well as build on, those from China and a few Eastern European countries. |
| Keywords: | Reinvestment,investment,external financing, property rights,private ownership, competition |
| JEL: | G21 D82 O16 |
| Date: | 2011–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:csr:wpaper:1005&r=sbm |
| By: | Victoria Castillo (Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Security, Buenos Aires, Argentina); Alessandro Maffioli (Interamerican Development Bank, Washington, DC); Ana P. Monsalvo (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Buenos Aires, Argentina); Sofía Rojo (Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Security, Buenos Aires, Argentina); Rodolfo Stucchi (ECONFOCUS, Córdoba, Argentina) |
| Abstract: | This paper evaluates the impact of the Argentine SME support program PRE on employment, real wages, and exports. The program aimed at increasing the competitiveness of SMEs by co-financing up to fifty percent of expenditures in professional services and technical assistance. We use a unique panel dataset constructed with administrative records. We combine Propensity Score Matching and Difference in Differences methods to control for selection biases in the estimations. We find a positive and quantitatively important impact of the program on employment and a positive although smaller impact on real wages and the probability of exporting. We also find that the effect of the program on wages and the probability of exporting take place one year after beneficiaries receive the program. The effect of the program on employment takes place one, two, and even, three years after beneficiaries receive the program. |
| Keywords: | Public Policy Evaluation, SMEs, Employment, Wages, Exports, Argentina, Difference in Differences, Propensity Score Matching |
| JEL: | C23 H43 L25 O12 O54 |
| Date: | 2010–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:idb:ovewps:0610&r=sbm |