Advertisement

Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 294–318 | Cite as

Exploring the Relationship of Innovation Intensity, Knowledge Production and Productivity in Greek SMEs Before the Eruption of Debt Crisis

  • Yannis HatzikianEmail author
  • Eleftherios Bampasis
Article
  • 237 Downloads

Abstract

In the context of this paper, we examine the relationship of innovation density, labour productivity and knowledge production in terms of new to the market products for Greece, before the eruption of debt crisis. This paper extends prior research (Hatzikian 2013a, b) and the main question of this study is, “What was the most effective innovation intensity that a firm needs to have for its firm performance before the Greek debt Crisis?” To this end, we use productivity and knowledge production or growth as metrics of firm performance and we explore their behaviour with regard to a firm’s innovation intensity. We test the hypotheses that there is a U-shaped relationship between innovation intensity and productivity, and there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between innovation intensity and knowledge production in the short-term period. We apply the method for examining nonlinearities, that is, the introduction of squared terms as independent variables. The collected variables are used in a multivariate multiple regression model formulation to evaluate the relative performance associated with them. For this reason, a number of variables are used, like the innovation intensity, the squared term of innovation intensity, the research and development (R&D) personnel, as well as the firm size. We rely on the final results of a research project on women in innovation, technology and science, based on 372 questionnaires selected on a 2-year time period (2004–2006) before the eruption of the debt crisis in Greece.

Keywords

Innovation R&D Productivity Knowledge Policy 

References

  1. Arundel, A., C. Bordoy, H. Hollanders, L. Nesta and P. Patel (2003). The future of the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS), Background Paper to the Trend Chart Policy Benchmarking Workshop, 24–25 February 2003, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  2. Barney, J. B. (1986). “Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck and business strategy”. Management Science, 32, 1231–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barras, R. (1986). “Towards a theory of innovation in services”. Research Policy, 15, 161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barras, R. (1990). “Interactive innovation in financial and business services: the vanguard of the services revolution”. Research Policy, 19, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barras, R., & Ferguson, D. (1987). “Dynamic modelling of the building cycle: 1. Theoretical framework”. Environment and Planning A, 19(3), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benner and Tushman. (2002). “Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 676–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bessen, J. (2002). Technology adoption costs and productivity growth: the transition to information technology. Review of Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 443–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breiman, L., & Friedman, J. H. (1997). “Predicting multivariate responses in multiple linear regression”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 59(1), 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canibano, C. L., Garcia-Ayuso, C. M., & Sanchez, M. P. (2000). Accounting for intangibles: a literature review. Journal of Accounting Literature, 19, 102–30.Google Scholar
  11. Cheng Jen, H., & Chun Ju, L. (2005). “Exploration for the relationship between innovation, IT and performance”. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chiao, Y. C., & Yang, K. P. (2011). “Internationalization, intangible assets and Taiwanese SMEs’ performance: evidence of an Asian newly-industrialized economy”. African Journal of Business Management, 5(3), 641–655.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conner, K. R. (1991). “A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm?”. Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crépon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairesse, J. (1998). “Research, innovation and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level”. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7, 115–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. (1999). “Geographic scope, product diversification, and the corporate performance of Japanese firms”. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8), 711–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dogson, M. (1991). The management of technological learning: lessons from a biotechnology company. Berlin: Walter & Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organisations. London: Pinter/Cassell.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission-DG Enterprise. (2004). Innovation management and the knowledge-driven economy. Brussels-Luxembourg: ECSC-EC-EAEC.Google Scholar
  21. Evangelista, R., & Sirilli, G. (1998). “Innovation in the service sector—results from the Italian statistical survey”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58(3), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evangelista, R., Sirilli, G. and Smith, K. (1998). Measuring innovation in services. IDEA paper series No. 6.Google Scholar
  23. Faria Pedro (2004). Innovation and productivity: what can we learn from the CIS III results for Portugal? Master Thesis, Technical University of Portugal.Google Scholar
  24. Foray, D. (2000). Characterizing the knowledge base: available and missing indicators. In OECD (Ed.), Knowledge management in the learning society (pp. 239–255). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  25. Geringer, M. J., Beamish, P. W., & Dacosta, R. C. (1989). Diversification strategy and internationalization: implications for MNE performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geroski, P. A. (1989). “Entry, innovation and productivity growth”. The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, 71(4), 572–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geroski, P. A. (1991). “Innovation and the sectoral sources of UK productivity growth”. The Economic Journal, 101, 1438–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldwasser, M. A., & Fitzmaurice, G. M. (2006). “Multivariate linear regression analysis of childhood psychopathology using multiple informant data”. Internatioanl Journal of Methods in PsychiatricResearch, 10(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gomes, L., & Ramaswamy, K. (1999). “An empirical examination of the form of the relationship between multinationality and performance”. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 173–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grant, R. (1995) “A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration”, Academy of Management—Best paper proceedings, pp. 17–21.Google Scholar
  31. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griliches, Z. (1958). Research costs and social returns: hybrid corn and related innovations. Journal of Political Economy, 66, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall, L. A., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2002). “A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry”. Technovation, 22, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hatzikian, Y. (2012). “An empirical testing of the relationship of innovation, information and communication technologies and productivity”. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 11(4), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hatzikian, Yannis (2013a). “Exploring the relationship of innovation, and productivity”, Journal of Knowledge Economy, p.p. 22, DOI:10.1007/s13132-012-0143-2.Google Scholar
  37. Hatzikian, Yannis (2013b). “An investigation of the relationship of innovation and knowledge production”, Knowledge Management: An International Journal, Volume 12, Issue 3, http://ijmk.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.257/prod.19.
  38. Hatzikian, Y., & Ninni, V. (2010). Innovation indexes performance and the women entrepreneurship: Greece as example. Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997a). International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hitt, A., Hoskisson, R., & Kim, H. (1997b). “International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms”. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Howells, J.R.L. and B.S. Tether (2004). Innovation in services: issues at stake and trends—a report for the European Commission, INNO-studies 2001: lot 3 (ENTR-C/2001), Brussels.Google Scholar
  42. Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1998). Are non-financial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kanerva, M., Hollanders, H. and Arundel, A. (2006). Can we measure and compare innovation in services? Report no. 2006 TrendChart Report, European Trend Chart on Innovation.Google Scholar
  44. Kim, W. C., Hwang, P., & Burgers, W. P. (1993). “Multinationals diversification and the risk-return trade-off”. Strategic Manage Journal, 14(4), 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), In the positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 289–291). Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kotabe, M., Srinivasan, S. S., & Aulakh, P. S. (2002). Multinationality and firm performance: the moderating role of R&D and marketing capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leung, D. (2004). The effect of adjustment costs and organizational change on productivity on Canada: evidence from aggregate data, Bank of Canada Working Papers, 04–1.Google Scholar
  48. Lfoof, H., & Heshmati, A. (2002). “Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: a firm-level innovation study”. International Journal of Production Economics, 76(1), 61–85.Google Scholar
  49. Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2004). “International diversification and firm performance: the S-curve hypothesis”. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lundvall, B. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Printer.Google Scholar
  51. Lutz, J. G., & Eckert, T. L. (1994). “The relationship between canonical correlation analysis and multivariate multiple regression”. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 666–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2005). “The importance of R&D for innovation: a reassessment using French survey data”. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mansfield, E. (1965). “Rates of return from industrial R&D”. American Economic Review, 55, 863–873.Google Scholar
  54. Mansury, M. A., & Love, J. H. (2008). “Innovation, productivity and growth in US business services: a firm-level analysis”. Technovation, 28, 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). “Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum”. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.Google Scholar
  57. OECD. (1993). Frascati manual. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  58. OECD. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  59. OECD. (1999). Managing national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  60. OECD. (2001). Innovative clusters: drivers of national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  61. OECD. (2002a). Towards a knowledge-based economy—recent trends and policy directions from the OECD. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  62. OECD. (2002b). Proposed standard practice for surveys for research and experimental development, Frascati manual 2002. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. OECD. (2005). Oslo manual: the measurement of scientific and technological activities. Oslo: OECD-EUROSTAT.Google Scholar
  64. OECD. (2009). Policy response to the economic crisis: investing in innovation and long-term growth. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  65. Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1994). National innovation systems: why they are important and how they might be measured and compared. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 3(1), 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Penrose, E. T. (1995). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition and economic development: local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). “The core competence of the corporation”. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  71. Qian, G. (2002). Multinationality, product diversification, and profitability of emerging US small- and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Qian, G., & Lee, L. (2003). Profitability of small- and medium-sized enterprises in high-tech industries: the case of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(9), 881–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Romer, P. (1990). “Endogenous technological change”. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: technology and economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Rosenberg, N. (1994). Exploring the black box: technology, economics, and history. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ruigrok, W., & Wagner, H. (2003). “Internationalization and performance: an organizational learning perspective”. Management International Review, 43(2003), 63–83.Google Scholar
  77. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: MA, Harvard Economic Studies.Google Scholar
  78. Teece, D. J. (2007). “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance”. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tzeng, C.-H. (2009). “A review of contemporary innovation literature: a Schumpeterian perspective”. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  81. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). “A resource-based view of the firm”. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. West, G. P., III. (2003). “Connecting levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: a focus on information processing, asymmetric knowledge and networks”. In C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 51–70). Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  83. West, G. P., III, & Noel, T. W. (2009). The impact of knowledge resources on new venture performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations