Advertisement

Comparative Economic Studies

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 502–530 | Cite as

The Role of Innovation and Management Practices in Determining Firm Productivity

  • Wiebke Bartz-Zuccala
  • Pierre Mohnen
  • Helena SchweigerEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the impacts of management practices and innovation on productivity, using data from a unique firm-level survey covering 30 countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia in the period 2011–2014. We estimate a structural model linking productivity to innovation activities and management practices. Results suggest that both returns to innovation and returns to management practices are important drivers of productivity. However, productivity in lower-income economies is affected to a larger extent by management practices than by innovation, while the opposite holds in higher-income economies. These results imply that firms operating in less favourable business environments can reap large productivity gains by improving the quality of management practices, before engaging in innovation through imitating and adapting foreign technologies.

Keywords

Innovation Management practices Productivity 

JEL Classification

O1 O3 M2 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper builds on the authors’ work on the 2014 EBRD Transition Report. We thank an anonymous referee for offering very constructive suggestions. We would like to thank Erik Berglöf, Werner Bönte, Ralph de Haas, Sergei Guriev, Jacques Mairesse, Alexander Plekhanov, Alessandro Sterlacchini, John Van Reenen and Adalbert Winkler for helpful discussions as well as the participants at the 8th MEIDE conference, the 6th Asia–Pacific Innovation conference, UCL SSEES “Achievements and Challenges for the Emerging Economies of Central Europe” Economics and Business Conference, and seminars at the EBRD, KOFF, OECD, SSB Norway, Université de Lille, Universidad de Navarra, Bergische Universität Wuppertal and University of Piacenza for their comments and suggestions. The views expressed in this paper are our own and do not necessarily represent those of the institutions of affiliation.

Supplementary material

41294_2018_75_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (157 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 158 kb)

References

  1. Acemoğlu, Daron, Philippe Aghion, Claire Lelarge, John Van Reenen, and Fabrizio Zilibotti. 2007. Technology, information, and the decentralization of the firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(4): 1759–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoğlu, Daron, Philippe Aghion, and Fabrizio Zilibotti. 2006. Distance to frontier, selection, and economic growth. Journal of European Economic Association 4(1): 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acemoğlu, Daron, Ufuk Akcigit, and Murat Alp Celik. 2017. Young, restless and creative: Openness to disruption and creative innovations. Mimeo, June 5. https://economics.mit.edu/files/13176. Last accessed on 9 September 2018.
  4. Aghion, Philippe. 2016. Competitiveness and growth policy design. In Moving to the Innovation Frontier, ed. Christian Keuschnigg. CEPR Press eBook, pp. 5–30. http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/Innovation%20Frontier.pdf. Last accessed on 3 May 2016.
  5. Akcigit, Ufuk, Harun Alp, and Michael Peters. 2016. Lack of Selection and Limits to Delegation: Firm Dynamics in Developing Countries. NBER Working paper No. 21905. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21905.pdf. Last accessed on 30 March 2016.
  6. Arnold, Jens, Giuseppe Nicoletti, and Stefano Scarpetta. 2008. Regulation, Allocative Efficiency and Productivity in OECD Countries: Industry and Firm-Level Evidence. OECD Economics Department Working paper No. 616.Google Scholar
  7. Arundel, Anthony, Kieran O’Brien, and Nuttaneeya Torugsa. 2013. How firm managers understand innovation: Implications for the design of innovation survey. In Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, ed. Fred Gault, 88–108. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Balsmeier, Benjamin, and Dirk Czarnitzki. 2014. How Important is Industry-Specific Managerial Experience for Innovative Firm Performance?. ZEW Discussion paper no. 14-011.Google Scholar
  9. Bircan, Çağatay, and Ralph De Haas. 2015. The Limits of Lending: Banks and Technology Adoption Across Russia. EBRD Working paper no. 178.Google Scholar
  10. Bloom, Nicholas, Erik Brynjolfsson, Lucia Foster, Ron Jarmin, Megha Patnaik, Itay Saporta-Eksten and John Van Reenen. 2017. What Drives Differences in Management?. US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No. CES-WP-17-32.Google Scholar
  11. Bloom, Nicholas, Benn Eifert, Aprajit Mahajan, David McKenzie, and John Roberts. 2013. Does management matter? Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bloom, Nicholas, Helena Schweiger, and John Van Reenen. 2012. The land that lean manufacturing forgot? Management practices in transition countries. Economics of Transition 20(4): 593–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bloom, Nicholas, and John Van Reenen. 2007. Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(4): 1351–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bloom, Nicholas, and John Van Reenen. 2010. Why do management practices differ across firms and countries? Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(1): 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bresnahan, Timothy F., Erik Brynjolfsson, and Lorin M. Hitt. 2002. Information technology, workplace organisation, and the demand for skilled labour: Firm-level evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(1): 339–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crépon, Bruno, Emmanuel Duguet, and Jacques Mairesse. 1998. Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 7(2): 115–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crespi, Gustavo, and Pluvia Zuniga. 2012. Innovation and productivity: Evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development 40(2): 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duguet, Emmanuel, and Claire Lelarge. 2012. Does patenting increase the private incentives to innovate? A microeconometric analysis. Annals of Economics and Statistics 107–108: 201–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EBRD. 2009. Transition Report 2009: Transition in Crisis? Chapter 5. London: EBRD.Google Scholar
  20. EBRD. 2014. Transition Report 2014: Innovation in Transition. London: EBRD.Google Scholar
  21. Estrin, Saul, Jan Hanousek, Evžen Kočenda, and Jan Svejnar. 2009. The effects of privatization and ownership in transition economies. Journal of Economic Literature 47(3): 699–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission. 2014. Industrial innovation policy. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/index_en.htm. Last accessed on 15 August 2014.
  23. Eurostat and OECD. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd ed. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foster, Lucia, John C. Haltiwanger, and Chad Syverson. 2008. Reallocation, firm turnover and efficiency: Selection on productivity or profitability? American Economic Review 98(1): 394–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geroski, Paul. 1989. Entry, innovation and productivity growth. Review of Economics and Statistics 71(4): 572–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geroski, Paul, Tobias Kretschmer, and Chris Walters. 2009. Corporate productivity growth: Champions, leaders and laggards. Economic Inquiry 47(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Girma, Sourafel, and Holger Görg. 2007. Multinationals’ productivity advantage: Scale or technology? Economic Inquiry 45(2): 350–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffith, Rachel, Elena Huergo, Jacques Mairesse, and Bettina Peters. 2006. Innovation and productivity across four European countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22(4): 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall, Bronwyn H., and Vania Sena. 2014. Appropriability mechanisms, innovation and productivity: Evidence from UK. NBER Working Paper No. 20514.Google Scholar
  30. Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Peter J. Klenow. 2009. Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4): 1403–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jorgenson, Dale W., Mun S. Ho, and Kevin J. Stiroh. 2008. A retrospective look at the U.S. productivity growth resurgence. Journal of Economic Perspectives 22(1): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kleis, Landon, Paul Chwelos, Ronald V. Ramirez, and Iain Cockburn. 2012. Information technology and intangible output: The impact of IT investment on innovation productivity. Information Systems Research 23(1): 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kumar, Nagesh, and Aradhna Aggarwal. 2005. Liberalization, outward orientation and in-house R&D activity of multinational and local firms: A quantitative exploration for Indian manufacturing. Research Policy 34(4): 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mairesse, Jacques, Pierre Mohnen, and Élisabeth Kremp. 2005. The importance of R&D and innovation for productivity: A reexamination in light of the 2000 French Innovation Survey. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique 79(80): 487–527.Google Scholar
  35. Masso, Jaan, and Priit Vahter. 2008. Technological innovation and productivity in late-transition Estonia: Econometric evidence from innovation surveys. European Journal of Development Research 20(2): 240–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKenzie, David, and Christopher Woodruff. 2014. What are we learning from business training and entrepreneurship evaluations around the developing world? World Bank Research Observer 29(1): 48–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mohnen, Pierre, and Bronwyn H. Hall. 2013. Innovation and productivity: An update. Eurasian Business Review 3(1): 47–65.Google Scholar
  38. Olley, G.Steven, and Ariel Pakes. 1996. The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 64(6): 1263–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Raymond, Wladimir, Jacques Mairesse, Pierre Mohnen, and Franz Palm. 2015. Dynamic models of R&D, innovation and productivity: Panel data evidence for Dutch and French manufacturing. European Economic Review 78: 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenbusch, Nina, Jan Brinckmann, and Andreas Bausch. 2011. Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing 26(4): 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Subba Rao, S., T.S. Ragu-Nathan, and Luis S. Solis. 1997. Does ISO 9000 have an effect on quality management practices? An international empirical study. Total Quality Management 8(6): 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Syverson, Chad. 2011. What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature 49(2): 326–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Leeuwen, George, and Shikeb Farooqui. 2008. ICT, innovation and productivity. In Eurostat “Information society: ICT impact assessment by linking data from different sources”, Final Report, 222–239. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/341889/725524/2006-2008-ICT-IMPACTS-FINAL-REPORT-V2.pdf/72f0967d-a164-46ad-a6d0-246be5a6d418. Last accessed on 1 October 2018.
  44. Wagner, Joachim. 2007. Exports and productivity—A survey of the evidence from firm-level data. The World Economy 30(1): 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner, Joachim. 2012. International trade and firm performance: A survey of empirical studies since 2006. Review of World Economics 148(2): 235–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Comparative Economic Studies 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OECDParisFrance
  2. 2.UNU-MERIT and Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtNetherlands
  3. 3.European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentLondonUK

Personalised recommendations