Advertisement

The Innovation Performance of MNE Subsidiaries and Local Embeddedness: Evidence from an Emerging Economy

  • Paulo N. FigueiredoEmail author
  • Klauber Brito
Conference paper
  • 637 Downloads

Abstract

We examine the innovation performance of MNE subsidiaries and their embeddedness in sources of local knowledge in a policy framework within the context of an emerging economy. Based on first-hand evidence from multiple case studies, we found that: (1) there was variability between the subsidiaries in terms of the cumulative manner and speed at which they improved their innovation performance over time, using progressively levels of accumulated capability as a proxy; (2) these differences in innovation performance improvement reflected heterogeneity between the subsidiaries in terms of the learning efforts made to acquire knowledge from local organizations; (3) the varied frequency in which the subsidiaries developed such local relationships reflects their differing responses to a common industrial policy that makes use of tax incentives to stimulate such links. The paper reveals the limitations of this conventional type of industrial policy in stimulating industrial development and the embeddedness of MNEs. It also suggests that a new direction for policy, which incorporates public-private negotiations and a focus on the firm-centred building of innovation capabilities, should be pursued in order to accelerate the innovation performance progress of latecomer firms.

Keywords

Innovation Performance Innovation Activity Industrial Policy Local Organization Patent Citation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper forms one of the outcomes of a research project on the business strategies and competitive performance of MNE subsidiaries in the electronics industry in Brazil at EBAPE/FGV. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 12th Conference of the International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July 2008. We thank the participants of the conference, two anonymous JEE reviewers and the editors of this Special Issue for their useful comments, and suggestions. We also thank Marcela Cohen for her assistance in carrying out this research. Any errors that remain are our own. We also gratefully acknowledge funding from the Brazilian Association for the Electro-electronics Industry (Abinee). All disclaimers apply.

References

  1. Almeida, P., & Phene, A. (2004). Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: the influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 847–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. (2000). In search of centre of excellence: network emdeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 40, 329–350.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2001). Subsidiary embeddedness and competence development in MNCs – a multi-level analysis. Organization Studies, 22, 1013–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson, U., Mats, F., & Holm, U. (2002). The strategic impact of external networks: subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 979–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ariffin, N. (2000). The internationalisation of innovation capabilities: the Malaysian electronics industry. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton.Google Scholar
  6. Ariffin, N., & Bell, M. (1999). Firms, politics and political economy: Patterns of subsidiary-parent linkages and technological capability-building in electronics TNC subsidiaries in Malaysia. In K. S. Jomo, R. Rasiah, & G. Felker (Eds.), Industrial technology development in Malaysia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Ariffin, N., & Figueiredo, P. N. (2004). Internationalisation of innovative capabilities: counter-evidence from the electronics industry in Malaysia and Brazil. Oxford Development Studies, 32, 559–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Avnimelech, G., & Teubal, M. (2008). Evolutionary targeting. journal of evolutionary economics, 18(2), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Managing across borders: the transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, M. (2006). Time and technological learning in industrializing countries: how long does it take? How fast is it moving (if at all)? International Journal of Technology Management, 36(1–3), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell, M., & Pavitt, K. (1993). Technological accumulation and industrial growth: contrasts between developed and developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(2), 157–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bell, M., & Pavitt, K. (1995). The development of technological capabilities. In I. U. Haque (Ed.), Trade, technology and international competitiveness. Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. Birkinshaw, J. M., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: the role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Young, S. (2005). Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance. International Business Review, 14, 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boehe, D. M. (2007). Product development in MNC subsidiaries: local linkages and global interdependencies. Journal of International Management, 13, 488–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cantwell, J. A., & Janne, O. E. M. (1999). Technological globalisation and the innovation centres: the role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy. Research Policy, 28, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cantwell, J. A., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a new paradigm (pp. 1–14). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Criscuolo, P., & Narula, R. (2008). A novel approach to national technological accumulation and absorptive capacity: aggregating Cohen and Levinthal. European Journal of Development Research, 20(1), 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The embeddedness of organizations: dialogue and directions. Journal of Management, 25, 317–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dougherty, D. (2002). Grounded theory research methods. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organisations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Dunning, J. H. (1994). Multinational enterprises and the globalization of innovatory capacity. Research Policy, 23, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunning, J. H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dyer, J. D., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganisational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660–679.Google Scholar
  26. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.Google Scholar
  27. Evans, P. (1995). Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Figueiredo, P. N. (2003). Learning, capability accumulation and firms differences: evidence from latecomer steel. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 607–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Figueiredo, P. N. (2008). Industrial policy changes and firm-level technological capability development: evidence from Northern Brazil. World Development, 36, 54–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garcia-Pont, C., Canales, I., & Noboa, F. (2009). Subsidiary strategy: the embeddedness component. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 182–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gerybadze, A. (2003). Knowledge management and transnational R&D projects: the role of asymmetric understanding and group cognition processes in distributed work. University of Hohenheim, Center for International Management and Innovation. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Oct.Google Scholar
  32. Ghoshal, S. & Bartlett, C. (1990). The multinational corporation as an interorganisational network. Academy of Management Review, 15, 603–626.Google Scholar
  33. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Granovetter, M. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: structure, form and action (pp. 25–56). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iammarino, S., Padilla, R., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Technological capabilities and global-local interactions: the electronics industry in two Mexican regions. World Development, 36, 1980–2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim, L. (1998). Crisis construction and organisational learning: capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organizational Science, 9, 506–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuemmerle, W. (2002). Home base and knowledge management in international ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lall, S. (1992). Technological capabilities and industrialisation. World Development, 20, 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–2150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malnight, T. W. (1995). Globalization of an ethnocentric firm: an evolutionary perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marin, A., & Bell, M. (2006). Technology spillovers from foreign direct investment (FDI): an exploration of the active role of MNC subsidiaries in the case of Argentina in the 1990s. Journal of Development Studies, 42, 678–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, C., Penttinen, H., & Tahvanainen, M. (2004). Interviewing in the multinational corporation: Challenges of the organisational context. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 244–263). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  44. Meyer, K. E. (2004). Perspectives on multinational enterprises in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(4), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Roger, G. (1999). New perspectives on the innovation strategies of multinational enterprises: lessons for technology policy in Europe. Research Policy, 28(7), 751–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miles, M. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Narula, R., & Dunning, J. H. (2010). Multinational Enterprises, Development and Globalization: Some Clarification and a Research Agenda. Oxford Development Studies, 38(3), 263–287.Google Scholar
  48. Pauwels, P., & Matthyssens, P. (2004). The architecture of multiple case research in international business. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  49. Rodrik, D. (2004). Industrial policy for the Twenty-First century. Faculty Research Working Papers Series, RWP04-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  50. Schmitz, H., & Strambach, S. (2009). Organisational decomposition of innovation and global distribution of innovative activities: insights and research agenda. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 2(4), 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Teece, D. (2007). The role of managers, entrepreneurs and the literati in enterprise performance and economic growth. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 1(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yamin, M., & Otto, J. (2004). Patterns of knowledge flows and MNE innovation performance. Journal of International Management, 10, 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang, Q., Mudambi, R., & Meyer, K. (2008). Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations. Journal of Management, 34, 882–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1990). Structure of capital. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration (EBAPE), Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV)Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations