Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Innovation and export performance: do young and mature innovative firms differ?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Eurasian Business Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relevant literature is conflicted about the direction of causality between innovation and exports. In this paper we attempt to shed light on this relationship by setting a theoretical framework where a two-way causality is hypothesized to exist between these two firm activities. In addition, the role of firm age is highlighted as firms at different stages of their life cycle may face different prospects and constraints and thus develop different strategies to survive and grow. Such differential patterns may be even more intense due to the different knowledge and capabilities portfolio possessed by young and mature firms. Employing a sample of Greek Manufacturing R&D active firms for the year 2010, we estimate a multi-group path analysis for young and mature firms. Even though empirical results do not support the existence of a two-way causality between innovation and export performance, when we account for the moderating role of age it becomes evident that the direction of causality differs between young and mature firms. Also the indirect and direct effect of firms’ R&D stock is confirmed as an intermediate link within the innovation-export nexus.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Standard errors are computed using the Huber-White sandwich estimator thus, accounting for heteroscedasticity issues.

  2. Gkypali and Tsekouras (2015) present in detail of the survey design and methodology.

  3. In order to determine the age threshold robustness checks have been performed using alternative age thresholds either greater or lower than 15 years and results are available upon request. Estimation results are robust for alternative age thresholds however for firm age lower than 15 years the model fit deteriorated.

  4. It should be noted that with respect to the estimation of indirect effects, MPlus uses the Sobel test to calculate indirect effects and employs the Delta method to calculate standard errors of the indirect effects. Simulation studies suggest parameter estimates and standard errors using MLR would be identical to those obtained with the bootstrapping procedure (Muthen and Muthen 2014).

References

  • Antonelli, C., & Scellato, G. (2013). Complexity and technological change: knowledge interactions and firm level total factor productivity. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23, 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis S., Gkypali A. & Tsekouras K., (2014): Knowledge Base, Exporting Activities, Innovation Openness and Innovation Performance: A SEM Approach towards a Unifying Framework, KOF Working paper series No361.

  • Audretsch, D. (1991). New firm survival and the technological regime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 411–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch (1997): Technological regimes, industrial demography and the evolution of industrial structures. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 49–82.

  • Autio, E., Sapienza, H., & Almeida, J. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 909–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aw, B. Y., Roberts, M., & Xu, D. Y. (2011). R&D investment, exporting, and productivity dynamics. American Economic Review, 101, 1312–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartelsman, E., Scarpetta, S., & Schivardi, F. (2005). Comparative analysis of firm demographics and survival: evidence from micro-level sources in OECD countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 365–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Golovko, E., & Martinez-Ros, E. (2010). Innovation, exports, and productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28(4), 372–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavusgil, T., & Knight, G. (2014). The born global firm: an entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clerides, S., Lach, S., & Tybout, J. (1998). Is learning by exporting important? micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 903–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2013). Like milk or wine: does firm performance improve with age? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 24, 173–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, J., & Melitz, M. (2008): The dynamics of firm-level adjustment to trade liberalization. In: Helpman, E., Marin, D., Verdier, T. (Eds.), The Organization of Firms in a Global Economy. Harvard University Press.

  • Crespi, G., Criscuolo, C., & Haskel, J. (2008). Productivity, exporting, and the learning-by-exporting hypothesis: direct evidence from UK firrms. Canadian Journal of Economics, 41(2), 619–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteve-Pérez, S., & Rodríguez, D. (2013). The dynamics of exports and R&D in SMEs,”. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Competitiveness Report (2012). “Reaping the benefits of Globalisation”, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/industrial-competitiveness/competitiveness-analysis/european-competitiveness-report/files/ecr2012_full_en.pdf.

  • Filipescu, D., Prashantham, S., Rialp, A., & Rialp, J. (2013). Technological innovation and exports: unpacking their reciprocal causality. Journal of International Marketing, 21, 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girma, S., Görg, H., & Hanley, A. (2008). R&D and exporting: a comparison of British and Irish firms. Review of World Economics, 144, 749–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gkypali, A., & Tsekouras, K. (2015): Efficiency and Competitive Advantage based on R&D activities of low-tech firms: an antecedent of the decision to export?”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, forthcoming.

  • Gkypali, A., Tsekouras, K., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2012). Endogeneity between internationalization knowledge creation of global R&D leader firms: an econometric approach using Scoreboard data. Industrial Corporate Change, 21, 731–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, E., & Golovko, G. (2011). Exploring the complementarity between innovation and export for SMEs’ growth. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3), 362–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R., & Li, Q. (2009). Exporting. R&D, and absorptive capacity in UK establishments, Oxford Economic Papers, 69(1), 74–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris R., & Moffatt J. (2011): R&D, Innovation and Exporting, SERC Discussion Paper 73, Spatial Economics Research Centre.

  • Hayduk, L. (1987). Structural equations modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders H. & Es-Sadki N. (2013), “Innovation Union Scoreboard Annual Report 2013”, European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2013_en.pdf.

  • Huergo, E., & Jaumandreu, J. (2004). Firms’ age, process innovation and productivity growth. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 541–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments”. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization model revisited: from liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm: four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafouros, M., Buckley, P., Sharp, J., & Wang, C. (2008). The role of internationalization in explaining innovation performance. Technovation, 28(1-2), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (1996). ‘Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86(3), 562–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, G., & Cavusgil, S. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. (1991). An empirical analysis of the determinants of global integration’. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kylaheiko, K., Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Tuppura, A. (2011). Innovation and internationalization as growth strategies: the role of technological capabilities and appropriability. International Business Review, 20, 508–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachenmaier, S., & Woessmann, L. (2006). Does innovation cause exports? Evidence from exogenous innovation impulses and obstacles using German micro data, Oxford Economic Papers, 58(2), 317–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lileeva, A., & Trefler, D. (2010). Improved access to foreign markets raises plant-level productivity for some plants. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 1051–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, J., & Ganotakis, P. (2013). Learning by exporting: lessons from high-technology SMEs. International Business Review, 22, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love J., Roper S. (2013): SME Innovation, Exporting and Growth”, Enterprise Research Centre, White paper No.5.

  • Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1993). Technological regimes and firm behavior. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2, 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 83–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Máñez, J., M., Rochina-Barrachina J. A.., Sanchis-Llopis (2015): The Dynamic Linkages Among Exports, R&D and Productivity. The World Economy, forthcoming.

  • March, J. (1991). Exploration exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. (2013). Innovation and Productivity: an update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B., and Muthen, L. (2014). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen and Muthen.

  • Pla-Barber, J., & Alegre, J. (2007). Analysing the link between export intensity, innovation and firm size in a science-based industry. International Business Review, 16(3), 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quevedo, J., Pellegrino, G., Vivarelli, M. (2014): R&D drivers and age: Are young firms different? Research Policy, forthcoming.

  • Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money?). Research Policy, 19, 65–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, R., & Shaver, J. (2005). Learning by exporting: new insights from examining firm innovation’. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 14, 431–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Tunzelmann, N., & Wang, Q. (2003). An evolutionary view of dynamic capabilities. Economie Appliquée, 6, 33–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (2001). A Note on the firm size export relationship. Small Business Economics, 17(4), 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (2007). Exports and productivity: a survey of the evidence from firm-level data. The World Economy, 30, 60–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakelin, K. (1998). Innovation and export behaviour at the firm level. Research Policy, 26(7-8), 829–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmore, L. (1992). Transnationals and foreign trade: evidence from Brazil’. Journal of Development Studies, 28, 314–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund, ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program: ARCHIMEDES III. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. The authors would like to thank participants of R&D Management Conference 2015 for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University Campus Rio, University of Patras, 26504, Patras, Greece

    Areti Gkypali & Kostas Tsekouras

  2. Department of Business Administration Megalou Alexandrou 1, Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece, Koukouli, 26334, Patras

    Apostolos Rafailidis

Authors
  1. Areti Gkypali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Apostolos Rafailidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kostas Tsekouras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Areti Gkypali.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gkypali, A., Rafailidis, A. & Tsekouras, K. Innovation and export performance: do young and mature innovative firms differ?. Eurasian Bus Rev 5, 397–415 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-015-0030-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-015-0030-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation