Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 261–276 | Cite as

Geographical proximity and open innovation of SMEs in Cyprus

  • Chrystalla KapetaniouEmail author
  • Soo Hee Lee
Article
  • 242 Downloads

Abstract

Open innovation implies that geographical proximity is irrelevant. However, we posit that any potential innovation outcome depends on the spatial constraints on openness. In this paper, we add a geographical proximity dimension to open innovation by analysing how a domestic and international open innovation approach affects innovation outcomes. In particular, we hypothesise that domestic open innovation has positive effects on new-to-the-firm product innovation, due to easily accessible resources. We further posit that, through international open innovation, SMEs can access new and advanced knowledge which is not available locally, leading to more novel innovations. However, we expect that the relationship between openness, both domestic and international, and innovation is conditional on R&D activities. Our empirical analysis based on the Cyprus Community Innovation Survey supports these hypotheses. Our results underline the critical role of the spatial aspect on open innovation in SMEs, something which has remained surprisingly absent from the literature.

Keywords

Domestic open innovation International open innovation SMEs Geographical proximity Innovation performance 

JEL classifications

D22 L17 L26 M11 O32 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial assistance from the European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant Employment in Europe based in the University of Cyprus is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Amable, B., & Palombarini, S. (1998). Technical change and incorporated R&D in the service sector. Research Policy, 27(7), 655–675.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00076-6.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms—evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33(2), 209–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003.Google Scholar
  3. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.003.Google Scholar
  4. Blind, K., & Jungmittag, A. (2004). Foreign direct investment, imports and innovations in the service industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 25(2), 205–227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-004-3537-x.Google Scholar
  5. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887.Google Scholar
  6. Carreira, C., & Silva, F. (2010). No deep pockets: some stylized empirical results on firms’ financial constraints. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(4), 731–753.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00619.x.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, S., & Hong, J. (2000). Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: intra-group resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 429–448.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1556403.Google Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41166175.Google Scholar
  10. Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00428.x.Google Scholar
  11. Coe, N. M., Dicken, P., & Hess, M. (2008). Global production networks: realizing the potential. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(3), 271–295.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn002.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2233763.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553.Google Scholar
  14. Czarnitzki, D., & Delanote, J. (2015). R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 465–485.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9661-1.Google Scholar
  15. Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013.Google Scholar
  16. Drechsler, W., & Natter, M. (2012). Understanding a firm’s openness decisions in innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 438–445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.003.Google Scholar
  17. Esteve-Pérez, S., & Rodríguez, D. (2013). The dynamics of exports and R&D in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 219–240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9421-4.Google Scholar
  18. Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x.Google Scholar
  19. Foreman-Peck, J. (2013). Effectiveness and efficiency of SME innovation policy. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 55–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9426-z.Google Scholar
  20. Freel, M. S. (2000). Strategy and structure in innovative manufacturing SMEs: the case of an English region. Small Business Economics, 15(1), 27–45.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012087912632.Google Scholar
  21. Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48(5), 692–710.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2094928.Google Scholar
  22. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–221.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00605.x.Google Scholar
  23. Gertler, M. S. (2003). Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 75–99.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.1.75.Google Scholar
  24. Gilbert, R. (2006). Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: where are we in the competition-innovation debate? In A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, & S. Stern (Eds.), Innovation policy and the economy (6th ed., pp. 159–215). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.  https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330053147958.Google Scholar
  26. Hadjimanolis, A., & Dickson, K. (2001). Development of national innovation policy in small developing countries: the case of Cyprus. Research Policy, 30(5), 805–817.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00123-2.Google Scholar
  27. Harris, R., Li, Q. C., & Trainor, M. (2009). Is a higher rate of R&D tax credit a panacea for low levels of R&D in disadvantaged regions? Research Policy, 38(1), 192–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.016.Google Scholar
  28. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(l), 53–161.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1912352.Google Scholar
  29. Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.x.Google Scholar
  30. Kirner, E., Kinkel, S., & Jaeger, A. (2009). Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms—an empirical analysis of German industry. Research Policy, 38(3), 447–458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.011.Google Scholar
  31. Kleinknecht, A. (1987). Measuring R & D in small firms: how much are we missing? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 253–256.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2098417.
  32. Kobrin, S. J. (1991). An empirical analysis of the determinants of global integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), 17–31.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120904.Google Scholar
  33. Kotabe, M., Mol, M. J., & Murray, J. Y. (2008). Outsourcing, performance, and the role of e-commerce: a dynamic perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(1), 37–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.06.011.Google Scholar
  34. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507.Google Scholar
  35. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2014). The paradox of openness: appropriability, external search and innovation collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—an intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.009.Google Scholar
  37. Leiponen, A. (2006). Managing knowledge for innovation: the case of business-to-business services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(3), 238–258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00196.x.Google Scholar
  38. Leiponen, A. (2012). The benefits of R & D and breadth in innovation strategies: a comparison of Finnish service and manufacturing firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1255-1281.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts022.Google Scholar
  39. Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 224–236.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.807.Google Scholar
  40. Liu, J., Chaminade, C., & Asheim, B. (2013). The geography and structure of global innovation networks: a knowledge base perspective. European Planning Studies, 21(9), 1456–1473.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.755842.Google Scholar
  41. Malecki, E. J. (2010). Global knowledge and creativity: new challenges for firms and regions. Regional Studies, 44(8), 1033–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903108676.Google Scholar
  42. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2006). Localized learning revisited. Growth and Change, 37(1), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2006.00302.x.Google Scholar
  43. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National systems of innovation: a comparative study. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nooteboom, B. (2000). Institutions and forms of co-ordination in innovation systems. Organization Studies, 21(5), 915–939.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600215004.Google Scholar
  45. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 187–206.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2246.
  46. OECD. (1997). Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data, Oslo manual (2nd ed.). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2008). Open innovation in global network. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  48. Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost examination of inter-firm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 794–829.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256759.Google Scholar
  49. Patel, P. C., Fernhaber, S. A., McDougall-Covin, P. P., & van der Have, R. P. (2014). Beating competitors to international markets: the value of geographically balanced networks for innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 691–711.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2114.Google Scholar
  50. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408.Google Scholar
  51. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.Google Scholar
  52. Radicic, D., Pugh, G., Hollanders, H., Wintjes, R., & Fairburn, J. (2016). The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: an evaluation for seven European Union regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(8), 1425–1452.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15621759.Google Scholar
  53. Robertson, P. L., & Langlois, R. N. (1995). Innovation, networks, and vertical integration. Research Policy, 24(4), 543–562.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(94)00786-1.Google Scholar
  54. Romijn, H., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Research Policy, 31(7), 1053–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00176-7.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.12.002.Google Scholar
  56. Salomon, R. M., & Shaver, J. M. (2005). Learning by exporting: new insights from examining firm innovation. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14(2), 431–460.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2005.00047.x.Google Scholar
  57. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2013). Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises. Small Business Economics, 41(3), 537–562.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9453-9.Google Scholar
  59. Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6), 423–437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics Research CentreUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.Kent Business SchoolUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations