Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of R&D spending on productivity of the Russian firms: does technological intensity matter?

  • Published:
Empirical Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the impact of R&D spending on firm productivity through innovation and human capital channels. To this end, we apply the structural CDM model to analyse a comprehensive Russian-firm level data obtained from the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey supplemented with the Regional Integral Index of Innovation Development. We consider internal and external human capital as well as different levels of firms’ technological intensity. Our first stage of analysis demonstrates that dissatisfaction with employees’ specialisation, import of intermediate products, and firm’s association with larger enterprise augment total R&D expenditures. The second stage of analysis reveals that R&D expenditures, cooperation with universities, personnel training, and regional innovations spur the firm’s innovative sales. Finally, the last stage of our analysis affirms our proposition that innovative sales, capital and labour costs per employee accelerate productivity. Our estimation is robust considering the regional differences. Our empirical findings provide several policy implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We utilise cross-sectional data for 2012–2014 obtained from Business Environment and Enterprise Survey (BEEPS). Note that BEEPS collaborated with World Bank Enterprise Survey (WBES), which conducted in 2008, 2012–2014, and 2019. However, we were unable to merge our dataset with the dataset for 2019 obtained by World Bank Enterprise Survey (WBES) to convert into panel format due to only 38% overlapping.

References

  • Aldieri L, Sena V, Vinci CP (2018) Domestic R&D spillovers and absorptive capacity: some evidence for US, Europe and Japan. Int J Prod Econ 198:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avdasheva SB, Shastitko AE, Kuznetsov BV (2006) Competition and the structure of markets: what can we learn from empirical studies on Russia. Russ J Manag 4(4):3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayyagari M, Demirguc-Kunt A, Maksimovic V (2012) Firm innovation in emerging markets: the role of finance, governance, and competition. J Financ Quant Anal 46(6):1545–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartoloni E, Baussola M (2018) Driving business performance: innovation complementarities and persistence patterns. Ind Innov 25(5):505–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum CF, Lööf H, Nabavi P, Stephan A (2017) A new approach to estimation of the R&D-innovation-productivity relationship. Econ Innov New Technol 26(1–2):121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozic L, Botric V (2011) Innovation propensity in the EU candidate countries. Transition Stud Rev 18:405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunow S, Birkeneder A, Rodríguez-Pose A (2018) Creative and science oriented employees and firm-level innovation. Cities 78:27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou Y, Giotopoulos I, Kontolaimou A, Korra E, Tsakanikas A (2021) Industry university knowledge flows and product innovation: how do knowledge stocks and crisis matter? Res Policy 50(3):16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlino G, Kerr W (2014) Agglomeration and innovation. NBER working paper 20367

  • Cirera X (2015) Catching up to the technological frontier? Understanding firm-level innovation and productivity in Kenya. Innovation and entrepreneurship, trade and competitiveness global Practice. The World Bank 94671

  • Chudnovsky D, López A, Pupato G (2006) Innovation and productivity in developing countries: a study of Argentine manufacturing firms’ behavior (1992–2001). Res Policy 35(2):266–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administ Sci Q Spec Issue Technol Org Innov 35(1):128–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte A, Vivarelli M (2014) Succeeding in innovation: key insights on the role of R&D and technological acquisition drawn from company data. Empir Econ 47:1317–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crepon B, Duguet E, Mairesse J (1998) Research, innovation and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. Econ Innov New Technol 7(2):115–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg LM (2014) Rating of innovative development of the subjects of the Russian Federation. HSE, Release, Moscow, p 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorodnikova NV, Gokhberg LM, Ditkovskii KA (2018) Indicators of innovation activity: 2018: statistical compilation. National Research University Higher School of Economics, NRU HSE, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg J, Srholec M, Verspagen B (2010) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation 2. Chapter, Innovation and Economic Development, pp 833–872

  • Ferraris A, Santoro G, Bresciani S (2017) Open innovation in multinational companies’ subsidiaries: the role of internal and external knowledge. Eur J Int Manag 11(4):452–468. https://doi.org/10.1504/ejim.2017.085583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca T, de Faria P, Lima F (2019) Human capital and innovation: the importance of the optimal organisational task structure. Res Policy 48(3):616–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallié E, Legros D (2012) Firms’ human capital, R&D and innovation: a study on French firms. Empir Econ 43:581–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith R, Huergo E, Mairesse J, Peters B (2006) Innovation and productivity across four European countries. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 22(4):483–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches Z (1979) Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth. Bell J Econ 10:92–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisado-Gonzalez M, Vila-Alonso M, Guisado-Tato M (2016) Radical innovation, incremental innovation and training: analysis of complementarity. Technol Soc 44:48–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall BH (2011) Innovation and productivity. NBER working paper no. 17178

  • Hall BH, Lotti F, Mairesse J (2013) Evidence on the impact of R&D and ICT investments on innovation and productivity in Italian firms. Econ Innov New Technol 22(3):300–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzichronoglou T (1997) Revision of the high-technology sector and product classification. OECD science. Technology and industry working papers no. 2

  • Haus-Reve S, Fitjar RD, Rodrıguez-Pose A (2019) Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in Norway. Res Policy 48(6):1476–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt-Dundas N, Gkypali A, Roper S (2019) Does learning from prior collaboration help firms to overcome the two-worlds paradox in university-business collaboration? Res Policy 48(5):1310–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krusinskas R, Norvaisiene R, Lakstutiene A, Vaitkevicius S (2015) Investment, Innovation and firm performance: empirical evidence from small manufacturing industries. J Finance Econ 3(6):122–131. https://doi.org/10.12691/jfe-3-6-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lööf H, Heshmati A (2003) The link between firm-level innovation and aggregate productivity growth: a cross-country examination. Res Eval 12:131–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lööf H, Heshmati A, Apslund R, Heshmati R (2001) Innovation and performance in manufacturing industries: a comparison of the nordic countries. SSE/EFI working paper series in economics and finance 457

  • Lööf H, Mairesse J, Mohnen P (2017) CDM 20 years after. Econ Innov New Technol 26(1–2):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2016.1202522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Rodriguez J, Martinez-Lopez D (2017) Looking beyond the R&D effects on innovation: the contribution of non-R&D activities to total factor productivity growth in the EU. Struct Change Econ Dyn 40:37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masso J, Vahter P (2008) Technological innovation and productivity in late-transition Estonia: econometric evidence from innovation surveys. Eur J Dev Res 20(2):240–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marotta D, Mark M, Blom A, Thorn K (2007) Human capital and university-industry linkages’ role in fostering firm innovation: an empirical study of Chile and Colombia. The World Bank

  • Martin BR (2012) The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Res Policy 41(7):1219–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris DM (2018) Innovation and productivity among heterogeneous firms. Res Policy 47(10):1918–1932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) OECD reviews of innovation policy: Russian Federation 2011. OECD Publishing

  • Orlando MJ (2004) Measuring spillovers from industrial R&D: on the importance of geographic and technological proximity. Rand J Econ 35:777–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Argiles R, Potters L, Vivarelli M (2011) R&D and productivity: testing sectoral peculiarities using micro data. Empir Econ 41:817–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakes A, Griliches Z (1984) (1984) Patents and R&D at the firm level: a first look. In: Griliches Z (ed) R&D, patents and productivity. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokop V, Stejskal J, Kuv’ıkov’a H (2017) The different drivers of innovation activities in European countries: a comparative study of Czech, Slovak, and Hungarian manufacturing firms. EkonomickyıCasopis 65(1):31–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramadani V, Hisrich RD, Abazi-Alili H, Dana L-P, Panthi L, Abazi-Bexheti L (2019) Product innovation and firm performance in transition economies: a multi-stage estimation approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change 140(C):271–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond W, Mairesse J, Mohnen P, Palm F (2015) Dynamic models of R&D, innovation and productivity: panel data evidence for Dutch and French manufacturing. Eur Econ Rev 78(1):285–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roback P, Legler J (2021) Beyond multiple linear regression: applied generalized linear models and multilevel models in R. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roper S, Love JH, Bonner K (2017) Firms’ knowledge search and local knowledge externalities in innovation performance. Res Policy 46(1):43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roud V (2007) Firm-level research on innovation and productivity: Russian experience,micro evidence on innovation in developing economies. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.596.8971rep=rep1type=pdf

  • Symeonidis G (1996) Innovation, firm size and market structure: Schumpeterian hypotheses and some new themes. OECD Economics department working papers 161. OECD Publishing

  • Solow R (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teplykh GV (2018) Innovations and productivity: the shift during the 2008 crisis. Ind Innov 25(1):53–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triguero A, Moreno-Mondájar L, Davia MA (2013) Drivers of different types of eco innovation in European SMEs. Ecol Econ 92(C):25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakhitova G, Pavlenko T (2010) Innovation and productivity: a firm level study of Ukrainian manufacturing sector, discussion papers 27, Kyiv School of Economics

  • World Bank (2019) World development report 2019: the changing nature of work. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1328-3. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO

  • Zemtsov S, Muradov A, Wade I, Barinova V (2016) Determinants of regional innovation in Russia: are people or capital more important? Foresight STI Governance 10(2):29–42. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2016.2.29.42

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Russian Science Foundation for its support of the research project No. 19-18-00262 “Empirical modelling of balanced technological and socio-economic development in the Russian regions”. We also express our sincere gratitude to the participants of the DEGIT Conference, Moscow (2018), particularly to Evguenia Bessonova, as well as to the participants of the Conference at the Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg (2018), particularly to Anna Fedyunina, for valuable discussion and suggestions.

Funding

This study was funded by the Russian Science Foundation (Research project No. 19-18-00262 “Empirical modelling of balanced technological and socio-economic development in the Russian regions”).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, Mira 19, Yekaterinburg, Russia

    Oleg Mariev, Karina Nagieva, Andrey Pushkarev, Natalia Davidson & Kazi Sohag

  2. Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of the RAS, Yekaterinburg, Russia

    Oleg Mariev

Authors
  1. Oleg Mariev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karina Nagieva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrey Pushkarev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Natalia Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kazi Sohag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrey Pushkarev.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mariev, O., Nagieva, K., Pushkarev, A. et al. Effects of R&D spending on productivity of the Russian firms: does technological intensity matter?. Empir Econ 62, 2619–2643 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-021-02095-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-021-02095-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation