Advertisement

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 313–337 | Cite as

Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability

  • Chang-Yang Lee
  • Ji-Hwan Lee
  • Ajai S. GaurEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of the share of business groups in an industry on the industry’s R&D intensity. First, we derive a simple theoretical model of industry R&D intensity in the presence of big business groups. Our model predicts that the effect of business-group share on industry R&D intensity differs across industries depending on the technological appropriability: A positive relationship for industries with low R&D appropriability, while a negative relationship for industries with high R&D appropriability. Based on these predictions, we develop and test our hypothesis using unique data on Korean manufacturing industries. Our results confirm the moderating role of technological appropriability, implying that the inverted-U shape between business-group share and industry R&D intensity frequently observed at the aggregate-sample level reflects the combination of those two opposite relationships.

Keywords

Technological innovation Industry R&D intensity Business groups Technological appropriability 

References

  1. Achi, Z., Boulas, C., Buchanan, I., Forteza, J. H., & Zappei, L. 1998. Conglomerates in emerging markets: Tigers or dinosaurs?. Strategy and Business, 11: 59–69.Google Scholar
  2. Angelmar, R. 1985. Market structure and research intensity in high-technological-opportunity-industries. Journal of Industrial Economics, 34: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. 1989. Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in multiproduct firms. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 310–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belenzon, S., & Berkovitz, T. 2010. Innovation in business groups. Management Science, 56: 519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernheim, D., & Whinston, M. 1990. Multimarket contact and collusive behavior. RAND Journal of Economics, 21: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley, S. W., McMullen, J. S., Artz, K., & Simiyu, E. M. 2012. Capital is not enough: innovation in developing economies. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 684–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. L. 2000. Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Economic Journal, 110: 388–410.Google Scholar
  8. Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., van Essen, M., & van Oosterhout, J. 2011. Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cave, E. E., & Porter, M. 1977. From entry barriers and mobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new competition. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91: 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caves, R. E. 1989. International differences in industrial organization. In R. Schmalensee & R. D. Willig (Eds.). Handbook of industrial organization, 2: 1127–1250. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, S. J., Chung, C. N., & Mahmood, I. P. 2006. When and how does business group affiliation promote firm innovation? A tale of two emerging economies. Organization Science, 17(5): 637–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, V., Li, J., Shapiro, D., & Zhang, X. 2014. Ownership structure and innovation: An emerging market perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choi, S. N. 1996. The 30 largest business groups in 1996 (in Korean). Korea Economic Development Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Choi, Y. R., Yoshikawa, T., Zahra, S. A., & Han, B. H. 2014. Market-oriented institutional change and R&D investments: Do business groups enhance advantage?. Journal of World Business, 49(4): 466–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. 1989. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalensee & R. D. Willig (Eds.). Handbook of industrial organization, 2: 1059–1107. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1989. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99: 569–596.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER working paper no. 7552, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Czarnitzki, D., Etro, F., & Kraft, K. 2014. Endogenous market structures and innovation by leaders: An empirical test. Economica, 81(321): 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Demsetz, H. 1973. Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dong, J., & Gou, Y.-N. 2010. Corporate governance structure, managerial discretion, and the R&D investment in China. International Review of Economics and Finance, 19(2): 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dorfman, R., & Steiner, P. 1954. Optimal advertising and optimal quality. American Economic Review, 44: 826–836.Google Scholar
  22. Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 1120–1171.Google Scholar
  23. Feenstra, R. C., Yang, T.-H., & Hamilton, G. G. 1999. Business groups and product variety in trade: Evidence from South Korea, Taiwan and Japan. Journal of International Economics, 48: 71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferris, S. P., Kim, K. A., & Kitsabunnarat, P. 2003. The costs (and benefits?) of diversified business groups: The case of Korean chaebols. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27(2): 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaur, A. S., & Delios, A. 2006. Business group affiliation and firm performance during institutional transition. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. Gaur, A. S., & Kumar, V. 2009. International diversification, firm performance and business group affiliation: Empirical evidence from India. British Journal of Management, 20: 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaur, A. S., Kumar, V., & Singh, D. A. 2014. Resources, institutions and internationalization process of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49: 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ghemawat, P., & Khanna, T. 1998. The nature of diversified business groups: A research design and two case studies. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46: 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Granovetter, M. 1995. Coase revisited: Business groups in the modern economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4: 93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griliches, Z. 1981. Market value, R&D, and patents. Economics Letters, 7(2): 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. He, Z. 2015. Rivalry, market structure and innovation: The case of mobile banking. Review of Industrial Organization, 47(2): 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herfindahl, O. C. 1950. Concentration in the U.S. steel industry. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  33. Hobday, M., & Colpan, A. M. 2010. Technological innovation and business groups. In A. M. Coplan, T. Hikino, & J. R. Lincoln (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of business groups: 763–781. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jaffe, A. B. 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76: 984–1001.Google Scholar
  35. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An empirical analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55: 867–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim, L. 1997. Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea’s technological learning. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  37. Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1995. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kock, C. J., & Guillén, M. F. 2001. Strategy and structure in developing countries: Business groups as an evolutionary response to opportunities for unrelated diversification. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10: 77–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kumar, V., Gaur, A. S., & Pattnaik, C. 2012. Product diversification and international expansion of business groups: Evidence from India. Management International Review, 52(2): 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawrence, R. Z. 1991. Efficient or exclusionist? The import behavior of Japanese corporate groups. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 311–341.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, C.-Y. 2003. Firm density and industry R&D intensity: Theory and evidence. Review of Industrial Organization, 22: 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee, C.-Y. 2005. A new perspective on industry R&D and market structure. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53: 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, C.-Y. 2009. Competition favors the prepared firm: Firms’ R&D responses to competitive market pressure. Research Policy, 38(5): 861–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, J.-H. 2007. Managing diversified firms through socio-cultural mechanisms: A focus on Korean chaebols. Management Revue, 16(1): 23–41.Google Scholar
  45. Lee, J.-H., & Gaur, A. S. 2013. Managing multi-business firms: A comparison between Korean chaebols and diversified U.S. firms. Journal of World Business, 48(4): 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levin, R., and Reiss, P. C. (1984). Tests of a Schumpeterian model of R&D and market structure. In Z. Griliches (Ed.). R&D, Patents, and Productivity: 175–208. University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  47. Levin, R. C., Cohen, W. M., & Mowery, D. C. 1985. R&D appropriability, opportunity, and market structure: New evidence on some schumpeterian hypotheses. American Economic Review, 75: 20–24.Google Scholar
  48. Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 783–820.Google Scholar
  49. Lu, J. W., & Ma, X. 2008. The contingent value of local partners business group affiliation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mahmood, I. P., & Lee, C.-Y. 2004. Business groups: Entry barrier-innovation debate revisited. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54: 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mahmood, I. P., & Mitchell, W. 2004. Two faces: Effects of business groups on innovation in emerging economies. Management Science, 50: 1348–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Manikandan, K. S., & Ramachandran, J. 2015. Beyond institutional voids: Business groups, incomplete markets, and organizational form. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4): 598–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Markides C. C., & Williamson P. J. 1994. Related diversification, core competencies and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 15: 149–165.Google Scholar
  54. Mason, E. S., Kim, M. J., Perkins, D. H., Kim, K. S., & Cole, D. C. 1989. The economic and social modernization of the Republic of Korea. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Morck, R., & Yeung, B. 2003. Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27: 367–382.Google Scholar
  56. Munari, F., Oriani, R., & Sobrero, M. 2010. The effects of owner identity and external governance systems on R&D investments: A study of Western European firms. Research Policy, 39(8): 1093–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Phillips, A. 1966. Patents, potential competition, and technical progress. American Economic Review, 56: 301–310.Google Scholar
  58. Piepenbrink, A., & Gaur, A. S. 2013. Methodological advances in the analysis of two-mode networks – An illustration using board interlocks of Indian business groups. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3): 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ramaswamy, K., Li, M., & Petitt, B. 2012. Why do business groups continue to matter? A study of market failure and performance among Indian manufacturers. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(3): 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saxonhouse, G. 1993. What does Japanese trade structure tell us about Japanese trade policy?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scherer, F. M. 1965. Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. American Economic Review, 55: 1097–1125.Google Scholar
  62. Scherer, F. M. 1982. Demand-pull and technological invention: Schmookler revisited. Journal of Industrial Economics, 30: 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. 1990. Industrial market structure and economic performance, 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  64. Scott, J. T. 1984. Firm versus industry variability in R&D intensity. In Z. Griliches (Ed.). R&D, patents, and productivity: 233–248. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  65. Singh, D. 2009. Export performance of emerging market firms. International Business Review, 18(4): 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Singh, D., & Gaur, A. S. 2009. Business group affiliation, firm governance and firm performance: Evidence from China and India. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4): 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Singh, D., & Gaur, A. S. 2013. Governance Structure, innovation and internationalization: Evidence from India. Journal of International Management, 19(3): 300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Spence, M. 1984. Cost reduction, competition, and industry performance. Econometrica, 52(1): 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. 2005. Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2): 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Cayseele, P. 1998. Market structure and innovation: A survey of the last twenty years. De Economist, 146: 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weinstein, D. E., & Yafeh, Y. 1995. Japan’s corporate groups: Collusive or competitive? An empirical investigation of keiretsu behavior. Journal of Industrial Economics, 43: 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KAIST College of BusinessKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Management and Global BusinessRutgers Business School, Newark and New BrunswickNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations