In recent years, there have been vigorous debates on whether restricting the operations of foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs) through various protectionist policies would allow local entrepreneurs to flourish. Research suggests that, although knowledge spillovers from MNEs can provide positive impetus to local entrepreneurship, MNE may also crowd out entrepreneurial firms. In this study, we examine how policies restricting MNEs’ entry affect local entrepreneurship, especially the diversity of the new firms being created. Using an agent-based simulation of an ecosystem, we model the dynamic interplay between MNEs’ knowledge spillover and diversity of local entrepreneurship and how two protectionist policies—tariffs on imports and subsidies for local entrepreneurs—impact this dynamic. We develop a fine-grained understanding of how such policies can both enhance and constrain different types of local entrepreneurship.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In this paper, we use the terms new firms, new ventures, and new companies interchangeably.
For a review of such computational models, refer to Smith and Conrey (2007) who discuss these models and their advantages and disadvantages.
Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-4736(05)16003-2.
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9505-9.
Aerts, K., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: a comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy, 37(5), 806–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.011.
Aitken, B. J., & Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 89(3), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.605.
Alcácer, J., & Chung, W. (2007). Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science, 53(5), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0637.
Alcácer, J., & Zhao, M. (2012). Local R&D strategies and multilocation firms: the role of internal linkages. Management Science, 58(4), 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1451.
Aldrich, H. E., & Kenworthy, A. L. (1999). The accidental entrepreneur: Campbellian antinomies and organizational foundings. Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of Donald, 12(6), 518–519. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204703.
Aldrich, H., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving. London: Sage Publications.
Almeida, P., Song, J., & Grant, R. M. (2002). Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building. Organization Science, 13(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.184.108.40.2064.
Almus, M., & Czarnitzki, D. (2003). The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms’ innovation activities. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500103288618918.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). The entrepreneurial theory of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00721.x.
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: implications for innovation management. In M. P. Dodgson & D. M. Gann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banalieva, E. R., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Sarathy, R. (2018). Dynamics of pro-market institutions and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0155-7.
Barnett, W. P., & Hansen, M. T. (1996). The red queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171010.
Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921. https://doi.org/10.1086/261712.
Baumol, W. J. (2010). The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (2010). Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bhawe, N., & Zahra, S. A. (2019). Inducing heterogeneity in local entrepreneurial ecosystems: the role of MNEs. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9954-7.
Blomström, M., & Kokko, A. (1998). Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(3), 247–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00056.
Boschma, R. A., & Wenting, R. (2007). The spatial evolution of the British automobile industry: does location matter? Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm004.
Chowdhury, F., Terjesen, S., & Audretsch, D. (2015). Varieties of entrepreneurship: institutional drivers across entrepreneurial activity and country. European Journal of Law and Economics, 40(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-014-9464-x.
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.
Comin, D., & Hobijn, B. (2004). Cross-country technology adoption: making the theories face the facts. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51(1), 39–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2003.07.003.
Davidsson, P., Low, M. B., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s introduction: low and MacMillan ten years on: achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870102500401.
Dixit, A. K., & Kyle, A. S. (1985). The use of protection and subsidies for entry promotion and deterrence. American Economic Review, 75(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-586X(85)90093-7.
Doreian, P. (2001). Causality in social network analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 30(1), 81–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124101030001005.
Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000013852.62017.0e.
Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. (2008). Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(4), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9074-z.
Eapen, A. (2012). Social structure and technology spillovers from foreign to domestic firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.2.
Eggertsson, T. (2005). Imperfect institutions: possibilities and limits of reform. Anna Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Eisenhardt, K., & Santos, F. M. (2002). Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy? In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy & management. London: SAGE publications.
Farmer, J. D., & Foley, D. (2009). The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature, 460(7256), 685–686. https://doi.org/10.1038/460685a.
Finegold, D. (1999). Creating self-sustaining, high-skill ecosystems. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15(1), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/15.1.60.
Flatten, T. C., Greve, G. I., & Brettel, M. (2011). Absorptive capacity and firm performance in SMEs: the mediating influence of strategic alliances. European Management Review, 8(3), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-4762.2011.01015.x.
Frost, T. S. (2001). The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries’ innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:2<101::AID-SMJ155>3.0.CO;2-G.
Gardner, E. I., Montjoy, R. S., & Watson, D. J. (2001). Moving into global competition: a case study of Alabama’s recruitment of Mercedes-Benz. Review of Policy Research, 18(3), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2001.tb00196.x.
Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Clusters, knowledge spillovers and new venture performance: an empirical examination. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.04.003.
Girma, S. (2005). Absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI: a threshold regression analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics, 67(3), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2005.00120.x.
Girma, S., & Wakelin, K. (2007). Local productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment in the U.K. electronics industry. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 37(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2006.11.006.
Görg, H., & Greenaway, D. (2004). Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment? The World Bank Research Observer, 19(2), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkh019.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.4.375.
Griliches, Z. (1959). Distributed lags, disaggregation, and regional demand functions for fertilizer. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/1235202.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200004)21:4<473::AID-SMJ84>3.0.CO;2-I.
Hall, B. H., & Lerner, J. (2010). Chapter 14 - the financing of R&D and innovation. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 609–639). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01014-2.
Harrison, J. R., Lin, Z., Carroll, G. R., & Carley, K. M. (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586485.
Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of R&D. 18(5), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088165
Hong, J. F. L., & Snell, R. S. (2013). Developing new capabilities across a supplier network through boundary crossing: a case study of a China-based MNC subsidiary and its local suppliers. Organization Studies, 34(3), 377–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612467154.
Howell, S. T. (2018). Joint ventures and technology adoption: a Chinese industrial policy that backfired. Research Policy, 47(8), 1448–1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.021.
Kerr, W. R. (2016). Harnessing the best of globalization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(1), 59–69.
Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to innovation: the dynamics of Korea’s technological learning. Brighton: Harvard Business Publishing.
Kim, H., Kim, H., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2010). Does market-oriented institutional change in an emerging economy make business-group-affiliated multinationals perform better? An institution-based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1141–1160. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.17.
Knott, A. M., Posen, H. E., & Wu, B. (2009). Spillover asymmetry and why it matters. Management Science, 55(3), 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0950.
Lerner, J. (2009). The empirical impact of intellectual property rights on innovation: puzzles and clues. American Economic Review, 99(2), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.2.343.
Lerner, J. (2013). The boulevard of broken dreams: innovation policy and entrepreneurship. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 13, 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/668239.
Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013). Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: the role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9507-7.
Liang, F. H. (2017). Does foreign direct investment improve the productivity of domestic firms? Technology spillovers, industry linkages, and firm capabilities. Research Policy, 46(1), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.08.007.
Lin, P., Liu, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Do Chinese domestic firms benefit from FDI inflow? Evidence of horizontal and vertical spillovers. China Economic Review, 20(4), 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2009.05.010.
Liu, X., Wang, C., & Wei, Y. (2009). Do local manufacturing firms benefit from transactional linkages with multinational enterprises in China? Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7), 1113–1130. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.97.
Luo, Y., Sun, J., & Wang, S. L. (2011). Emerging economy copycats: capability, environment, and strategy. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2), 37–56.
Lux, S., Crook, T. R., & Woehr, D. J. (2011). Mixing business with politics: a meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. Journal of Management, 37(1), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310392233.
Macal, C. M., & North, M. J. (2013). Successful approaches for teaching agent-based simulation. Journal of Simulation, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2012.1.
Markusen, J. R. (2004). Multinational firms and the theory of international trade. Journal of Economics, 81(3), 284–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-003-0035-9.
Mateut, S. (2018). Subsidies, financial constraints and firm innovative activities in emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 50(1), 131–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9877-3.
Mauer, R., Wuebker, R., Schlüter, J., & Brettel, M. (2018). Prediction and control: an agent-based simulation of search processes in the entrepreneurial problem space. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1271.
Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.720.
Minniti, M. (2008). The role of government policy on entrepreneurial activity: productive, unproductive, or destructive? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 779–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00255.x.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 726–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.001.
Motohashi, K., & Yuan, Y. (2010). Productivity impact of technology spillover from multinationals to local firms: comparing China’s automobile and electronics industries. Research Policy, 39(6), 790–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.014.
Nanda, R., & Khanna, T. (2010). Diasporas and domestic entrepreneurs: evidence from the Indian software industry. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 19(4), 991–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00275.x.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National systems of innovation: a comparative study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
North, D. C. (1990). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692890002004001.
Parker, S. C. (2010). Contracting out, public policy and entrepreneurship. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 57(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.2010.00510.x.
Pedersen, T., & Shaver, M. (2011). Internationalization revisited: the big step hypothesis. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.20.
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: a focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400377.
Peters, M., Schneider, M., Griesshaber, T., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2012). The impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies on technical change – does the locus of policies matter? Research Policy, 41(8), 1296–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.004.
Pitelis, C. (2012). Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual framework. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(6), 1359–1388. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts008.
Ricart, J. E., Enright, M. J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S. L., & Khanna, T. (2004). New frontiers in international strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(3), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400080.
Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Reproducing knowledge: replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Organization Science, 12(3), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/3086009.
Samuelsson, M., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9093-7.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and route. Brighton: Harvard University Publishing.
Saxenian, A. L. (1996). Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and route. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Singh, J. (2007). Asymmetry of knowledge spillovers between MNCs and host country firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 764–786. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400289.
Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2007). Agent-based modeling: a new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294789.
Spencer, J. W. (2008). The impact of multinational enterprise strategy on indigenous enterprises: horizontal spillovers and crowding out in developing countries. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159401.
Spencer, J. W., Murtha, T. P., & Lenway, S. A. (2005). How governments matter to new industry creation. The Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159122.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331.
Sunny, S. A., & Shu, C. (2017). Investments, incentives, and innovation: geographical clustering dynamics as drivers of sustainable entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 50(11), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9941-z.
Takeuchi, Y. (1996). Global dynamical properties of Lotka-Volterra systems. Singapore: World Scientific.
Teahan, W. J. (2010). Artificial intelligence–agents and environments. William John Teahan & Ventus Publishing Press.
Tesfatsion, L. (2002). Agent-based computational economics: growing economies from the bottom up. Artificial Life, 8(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1162/106454602753694765.
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275513.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069443.
Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x.
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009421303064.
Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-2000-1.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351.
Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.0149.
Zhang, C., Tan, J., & Tan, D. (2016). Fit by adaptation or fit by founding? A comparative study of existing and new entrepreneurial cohorts in China. Strategic Management Journal, 37(5), 911–931. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2355.
The fourth author is grateful for support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 71620107001].
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix. Agent-based model for local economies
Appendix. Agent-based model for local economies
The agent-based NetLogo model used in this paper can also be represented using dynamics systems approach. In the Appendix, we show an equivalent formal two-equation system dynamics approach. As a variant of Lotka-Volterra model (Takeuchi 1996), the model represents a typical dynamical system well suited for our model which has been used in prior work studying the relationship between knowledge spillovers and innovation (Parker 2010). Adopting a similar model with slight changes to account for heterogeneity in competitive interactions between various types of local entrepreneurs and MNEs, we arrive at the following dynamic structure for change in population of the four different types of local entrepreneurs. If λi represents the population size of local entrepreneurs for a particular type i, K denotes the knowledge spillovers from the foreign MNEs, and T and S denote tariffs and subsidies, then the proportion of local entrepreneurship varies in a manner similar to a competitive Lotka-Volterra rate of change (Takeuchi 1996)
The type of local entrepreneurship in an economy varies as a logistic growth curve (Griliches 1959) with a steady growth rate r. The effect of foreign MNEs on the population of different types of local entrepreneurs’ g (K, αij, u, T, S) is a function of total spillovers and the local ACAP and the level of tariffs and subsidies that can go from 0 to 1. Similarly, the effect on the amount of knowledge spillovers for a focal foreign MNE f (K, Bj, u, T, S) is a function of the relative populations of different types of local entrepreneurship, the local absorptive capacity μ, and the level of tariffs T and subsidies S. The two sets of dynamical equations represent mutual interactions between different autonomous agents. The effect of each agent on other agents in the model is captured by the matrix αij, and these can be negative or positive. The effect of local entrepreneurship on foreign MNEs is captured by the vector Bj. The functional forms f and g can be assumed to be linear.
NetLogo 6.0 Base Code
About this article
Cite this article
Bhawe, N., Zahra, S.A., Chao, C. et al. Protectionist policies and diversity of entrepreneurial types. Small Bus Econ 56, 789–807 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00269-z
- Diversity of local entrepreneurship
- Local entrepreneurship