Complementarities of Innovation Strategies: Evidence from Transition Economies

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 8/2)

Abstract

This paper explores complementarities among innovation strategies in transition economies. Specifically, on the basis of data from the fifth round of Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS V), we have investigated the existence of possible complementarities between various types of innovation modes (product, process and non-technological (marketing and/or organizational) innovations) in their impact on the firm’s productivity. The study reveals complementarity between the following two combinations of innovations: product/process and process/non-technological innovations. Further, the results of the study show that only those combinations of innovation modes that assume all the types of innovations and/or the combination of process and non-technological innovations have positive and statistically significant impact on the firm’s productivity. In the paper, we account for the simultaneous occurrence of different types of innovation inputs—in-house knowledge generation and out-house knowledge acquisition activities—and estimate their joint effects on various modes of innovation. The study results suggest that implementation of internal research and development (R&D) strategy can stimulate not only technological innovations but non-technological innovative activity as well. However, we find that external knowledge acquisition strategy has positive and statistically significant effect on innovation output only when the firm’s innovation mix incorporates non-technological novelties.

Keywords

R&D External knowledge acquisition Innovation Productivity Complementarity Transition economies 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ballot, G., Fakhfakh, F., Galia, F., & Salter, A. (2011). The fateful triangle complementarities between product, process and organizational innovation in the UK and France (TEPP Working Paper, No 2011-05, TEPP – Institute for Labor Studies and Public Policies) [online]. Accessed September 20, 2015, from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00812141/document
  2. Berulava, G., & Gogokhia, T. (2016). On the role of in-house R&D and external knowledge acquisition in firm’s choice for innovation strategy: Evidence from transition economies. Moambe. Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 10(3), 150–158.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, W., & Klepper, S. (1996). A reprise of size and R&D. The Economic Journal, 106(437), 925–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conte, A., & Vivarelli, M. (2014). Succeeding in innovation: Key insights on the role of R&D and technological acquisition drawn from company data. Empirical Economics, 47(4), 1317–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cozzarin, B. P., & Percival, J. C. (2006). Complementarities between organizational strategies and innovation. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 15(3), 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crepon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairesse, J. (1998). Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 7(2), 115–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crespi, G., Arias-Ortiz, E., Tacsir, E., Vargas, F., & Zuñiga, P. (2014). Innovation for economic performance: The case of Latin American firms. Eurasian Business Review, 4(1), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doran, J. (2012). Are differing forms of innovation complements or substitutes? European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EBRD. (2014). EBRD transition report 2014: Innovation in transition. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [online]. Accessed March 12, 2015, from http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/transition/tr14.pdf
  10. Friesenbichler, K., & Peneder, M. (2016). Innovation, competition and productivity: Firm level evidence for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (WIFO Working Papers, No 516) [online]. Accessed March 20, 2016, from http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/58776
  11. Green, H. W. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Griffith, R., Huergo, E., Mairesse, J., & Peters, B. (2006). Innovation and productivity across four European countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4), 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall, B. H. (2011). Innovation and productivity. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 2, 167–203.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, B., & Mairesse, J. (2006). Empirical studies of innovation in the knowledge driven economy. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 15(4/5), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janz, N., Loof, H., & Peters, B. (2004). Firm level innovation and productivity – Is there a common story across countries? Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2, 184–204.Google Scholar
  17. Kraft, K. (1990). Are product- and process-innovations independent of each other? Applied Economics, 22(8), 1029–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loof, H., & Heshmati, A. (2006). On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 15(4/5), 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loof, H., Heshmati, A., Asplund, R., & Naas, S.-O. (2003). Innovation and performance in manufacturing industries: A comparison of the Nordic countries. International Journal of Management Research, 20(2), 5–36.Google Scholar
  20. Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., & Kremp, E. (2005). The importance of R&D and innovation for productivity: A reexamination in light of the 2000 French innovation survey. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 79/80, 489–529.Google Scholar
  21. Martinez-Ros, E. (2000). Explaining the decisions to carry out product and process innovations: The Spanish case. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 10(2), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martínez-Ros, E., & Labeaga, J. (2009). Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities. European Management Review, 6(1), 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masso, J., & Vahter, P. (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
  24. Masso, J., & Vahter, P. (2012). The link between innovation and productivity in Estonia’s services sector. The Service Industries Journal, 32(16), 2527–2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy and organization. American Economic Review, 80(3), 511–528.Google Scholar
  26. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2–3), 179–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milgrom, P., & Shannon, C. (1994). Monotone comparative statics. Econometrica, 62(1), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miravete, E., & Pernías, J. (2006). Innovation complementarity and scale of production. Journal of Industrial Economics, 54(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: An update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47–65.Google Scholar
  30. Mohnen, P., & Roller, L. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, 49(6), 1431–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters, 5(4), 377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pavitt, K., Robson, M., & Townsend, J. (1987). The size distribution of innovating firms in the UK: 1945–1983. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(3), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Percival, J. C., & Cozzarin, B. P. (2008). Complementarities affecting the returns to innovation. Industry and Innovation, 15(4), 371–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polder, M., van Leeuwen, G., Mohnen, P., & Raymond, W. (2009). Productivity effects of innovation modes (Statistics Netherlands Discussion Paper 09033, The Hague) [online]. Accessed August 30, 2015, from https://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/DD2A1AEF-A40B-4D71-9829-9CA81055400B/0/200933x10pub.pdf
  35. Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2006). Investigating the sources of process innovation among UK manufacturing firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(4), 653–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roodman, D. (2011). Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with CMP. The Stata Journal, 11(2), 159–206.Google Scholar
  37. Schmidt, T., & Rammer, C. (2007). Non-technological and technological innovation (ZEW: Centre for European Economic Research, Discussion Paper # 07-052) [online]. Accessed August 30, 2015, from http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp07052.pdf
  38. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
  40. Topkis, D. M. (1978). Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Operations Research, 26(2), 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Topkis, D. M. (1987). Activity optimization games with complementarity. European Journal of Operations Research, 28(3), 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Topkis, D. M. (1998). Supermodularity and complementarity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Vakhitova, G., & Pavlenko, T. (2010). Innovation and productivity: A firm level study of Ukrainian manufacturing sector (Discussion Paper Series, DP27 June, Kyiv School of Economics& Kyiv Economics Institute) [online]. Accessed October 25, 2015, from https://core.ac.uk/download/files/153/6249395.pdf
  44. van Leeuwen, G., & Farooqui, S. (2008). ICT, innovation and productivity. In Eurostat (Ed.), Information society: ICT impact assessment by linking data from different sources (Final Report, pp. 222–239) [online]. Accessed August 30, 2015, from http://www.scb.se/Grupp/OmSCB/Internationellt/Dokument/ICT-IMPACTS-FINAL-REPORT-V2.pdf
  45. World Bank Group. (2009). Enterprise survey and indicator surveys sampling methodology [online]. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://www.enterprisesurveys.org//~/media/GIAWB/EnterpriseSurveys/Documents/Methodology/Sampling_Note.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.P. Gugushvili Institute of EconomicsI. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State UniversityTbilisiGeorgia

Personalised recommendations