What determines innovation activity in Chinese state-owned enterprises? The role of foreign direct investment

We investigate whether inward foreign direct investment (FDI), either at the firm or industry level, has any impact on product innovation by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). We use a comprehensive firm-level panel data set of some 20,000 SOEs during 1999-2005. Our results show that foreign capital participation at the firm level is associated with higher innovative activity. Inward FDI in the sector, by contrast, has a negative effect on innovative activity in SOEs on average. However, there is a positive effect of sector-level FDI on SOEs that export, invest in human capital, or undertake R&D. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Foreign direct investment, access to finance, and innovation activity in Chinese enterprises

A recent, comprehensive database is used to investigate the link between inward foreign direct investment (FDI) and innovation activity in China. The results of the analysis suggest that private and collectively owned firms with foreign capital participation and those with good access to domestic bank loans innovate more than other firms do. Among enterprises not owned by the state, inward FDI at the sectoral level is positively associated with domestic innovative activity only among firms that engage in their own research and development or that have good access to domestic finance. At the sector level the effect of inward FDI into technology transfer is distinguished from the effect on domestic credit opportunities. FDI affecting credit is of little significance for state-owned enterprises and is independent of their access to finance. In contrast, better access to credit is an important channel through which FDI affects the innovation of domestic private and collectively owned enterprises.

Innovation and export performance:evidence from UK and German manufacturing plants

Using comparable plant-level surveys we demonstrate significant differences between the determinants of export performance among the UK and German manufacturing plants. Product innovation, however measured, has a strong effect on the probability and propensity to export in both countries. Being innovative is positively related to export probability in both countries. In the UK the scale of plants’ innovation activity is also related positively to export propensity. In Germany, however, where levels of innovation intensity are higher but the proportion of sales attributable to new products is lower, there is some evidence of a negative relationship between the scale of innovation activity and export performance. Significant differences are identified between innovative and non-innovative plants, especially in their absorption of spill-over effects. Innovative UK plants are more effective in their ability to exploit spill-overs from the innovation activities of companies in the same sector. In Germany, by contrast, non-innovators are more likely to absorb regional and supply-chain spill-over effects. Co-location to other innovative firms is generally found to discourage exporting.

Location and network effects on innovation success:evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants

Recent developments in the new economic geography and the literature on regional innovation systems have emphasised the potentially important role of networking and the characteristics of firms' local operating environment in shaping their innovative activity. Modeling UK, German and Irish plants' investments in R&D, technology transfer and networking, and their effect on the extent and success of plants' innovation activities, casts some doubt on the importance of both of these relationships. In particular, our analysis provides no support for the contention that firms or plants in the UK, Ireland or Germany with more strongly developed external links (collaborative networks or technology transfer) develop greater innovation intensity. However, although inter-firm links also have no effect on the commercial success of plants' innovation activity, intra-group links are important in terms of achieving commercial success. We also find evidence that R&D, technology transfer and networking inputs are substitutes rather than complements in the innovation process, and that there are systematic sectoral and regional influences in the efficiency with which such inputs are translated into innovation outputs. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V.

Service innovation, embeddedness and business performance:evidence from Northern Ireland

This paper explores the factors that determine innovation by service firms, and in particular the contribution of intra- and extra-regional connectivity. Subsequently, it is examined how service firms' innovation activity relates to productivity and export behaviour. The empirical analysis is based on matched data from the 2005 UK Innovation Survey - the UK component of the 4th Community Innovation Survey (CIS) - and the Annual Business Inquiry for Northern Ireland. Evidence is found of negative intra-regional embeddedness effects, but there is a positive contribution to innovation from extra-regional connectivity, particularly links to customers. Relationships between innovation, exporting, and productivity prove complex, but suggest that innovation itself is not sufficient to generate productivity improvements. Only when innovation is combined with increased export activity are productivity gains evident.

Innovation, ownership and profitability

There is lots of evidence that innovating firms are persistently more profitable than non-innovators, but little agreement on why this is the case. It may be because innovators are somehow able to protect their new products from the competition which normally erodes profits, or because innovating firms have superior capabilities and are able to introduce multiple innovations over time. And very little is known about the relationship between innovation, external ownership and profitability, despite the fact that foreign-owned firms are frequently highly innovative and very profitable. This paper considers the relationship between innovation, ownership and profitability for a panel of manufacturing plants in Ireland and Northern Ireland. We consider the link between innovation and profits separately for innovators and non-innovators, and for indigenous innovators and non-innovators and externally-owned plants. We also consider the determinants of innovation over the distribution of plant-level profitability, and find that the determinants of profitability – including innovation and external ownership – are quite different for low and high-profitability plants. We find support for the view that innovators and non-innovators have different profitability determinants, and that externally-owned plants have their profitability determined in a quite different way from indigenous enterprises. For indigenous non-innovators only the sector matters. Profitability in these enterprises is dictated largely by the industry they are in, with plants having virtually no means of differentiating their profitability from the norms of the industry. By contrast, indigenously-owned innovators are able to differentiate their profit performance from industry norms to some extent. Absolute size matters (negatively) and they get a strong boost from product innovation, but having a high market share does not matter for the profitability of indigenously-owned innovators. Externally-owned plants have a quite different set of profitability determinants from both of these groups. What matters for these plants is not the boost they get from innovating (there is none) but instead their position in the domestic market – a high market share boosts profitability. In policy terms our results suggest both optimistic and cautionary messages. On the positive side our results suggest that efforts to promote innovation activity among indigenously-owned plants are likely to have significant longer term benefits through their capability effects. For the development agencies in Ireland this is a reassuring result. On the more negative side, the lack of any relationship in our models between the innovation activities of externally-owned plants and their (profitability) performance raises potential concerns. This finding may reflect the lack of linkages between externally-owned plants and their Irish resource base, in turn raising some worrying issues about the ‘embeddedness’ of much FDI into Ireland and therefore its ‘stickiness’ in the face of Ireland’s increasing high relative cost base.

The limits of open innovation:openness and (quasi-)markets in the organization of innovation

Recent studies have stressed the importance of ‘open innovation’ as a means of enhancing innovation performance. The essence of the open innovation model is to take advantage of external as well as internal knowledge sources in developing and commercialising innovation, so avoiding an excessively narrow internal focus in a key area of corporate activity. Although the external aspect of open innovation is often stressed, another key aspect involves maximising the flow of ideas and knowledge from different sources within the firm, for example through knowledge sharing via the use of cross-functional teams. A fully open innovation approach would therefore combine both aspects i.e. cross-functional teams with boundary-spanning knowledge linkages. This suggests that there should be complementarities between the use cross-functional teams with boundary-spanning knowledge linkages i.e. the returns to implementing open innovation in one innovation activity is should be greater if open innovation is already in place in another innovation activity. However, our findings – based on a large sample of UK and German manufacturing plants – do not support this view. Our results suggest that in practice the benefits envisaged in the open innovation model are not generally achievable by the majority of plants, and that instead the adoption of open innovation across the whole innovation process is likely to reduce innovation outputs. Our results provide some guidance on the type of activities where the adoption of a market-based governance structure such as open innovation may be most valuable. This is likely to be in innovation activities where search is deterministic, activities are separable, and where the required level of knowledge sharing is correspondingly moderate – in other words those activities which are more routinized. For this type of activity market-based governance mechanisms (i.e. open innovation) may well be more efficient than hierarchical governance structures. For other innovation activities where outcomes are more uncertain and unpredictable and the risks of knowledge exchange hazards are greater, quasi-market based governance structures such as open innovation are likely to be subject to rapidly diminishing returns in terms of innovation outputs.

Exporting and innovation performance: analysis of the Annual Small Business Survey in the UK

This paper analyses the determinants of the export propensity of UK small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) based on the 2004 Annual Small Business Survey. Particular emphasis is placed upon the relationship between innovation activities (distinguishing product from process innovation) and export performance. In general the data suggest that some 17 per cent of firms within this group sell outside the UK. Businesses that export are also characterized by high levels of innovation activity (43 per cent of exporters innovate in products, 27 per cent innovate in process and 21 per cent innovate in both). When considering product and process innovation independently we find that both impact positively on the decision to export. However, once we consider the interdependence between both innovation activities, we find no robust evidence that process innovation increases the probability to export beyond product innovation.

Product innovation in a medium size mature manufacturing company

This thesis is concerned with the management of product innovation inside the medium size, mature, manufacturing company. An academic perspective of innovation is integrated with an account of direct participation acquired over a two year period. The emergent synthesis provides fresh insight into some of the problems associated with producing and sustaining innovation. Product innovation is a very complex activity, and it presents particular difficulties for mature industry. However, the ability to innovate is fundamental to a company's continued survival. Three aspects of product innovation are examined in detail. Firstly, is the requirement to separate innovation activity from the on-going business interests; dependency between the degree of separation and novelty is supported. Secondly, a simple sequential model of the innovation process is tested and shown to be of considerable practical value. Thirdly a relationship is established between the age of the recipient market and the type of innovation to be found in that market All three aspects are found to have important implications for management in their pursuit of innovation. Management deficiencies which inhibited the successful resolution of innovation-linked problems are described and solutions which stress the need for commitment and coherency are proposed. The long existing management structure in the mature company which mitigates against successful and continuing innovation are examined in detail and a strategy is evolved which uses the intrinsic strengths of the mature company to promote innovation of a kind compatible with success in the market. A set of guidelines of practical value is presented for those managers wishing to pursue, and sustain, product innovation in the medium size mature company.

Influencing online grocery innovation:anti-choice as a trigger for activity fragmentation and multi-tasking

This paper reveals how activity fragmentation and multi-tasking become tools of consumer anti-choice in the online grocery sector: facilitated by new technology practices that positively encourage anti-choice. This is demonstrated through five long-term ethnographic case studies of households in the Portsmouth area of England. All the respondents made some form of conscious effort to minimize the amount of time they spent in ‘big box’ grocery stores. They spend more time at home in planning, searching, socializing online, cumulating and fulfilling internet orders than if they had visited a store: something that all could easily do. The findings suggest the need for constant innovation by internet grocers if they are to remain in tune with dynamic consumer lifestyles and advances in technology. Examples of upcoming technologies requiring retailers to re-think their internet strategies are discussed in view of the possibilities offered by activity fragmentation and multi-tasking.

The organisation of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manufacturing

Marked differences exist between the institutional and social context for innovation in the UK and Germany. The question addressed here is how these different contexts affect the objectives and organisation of innovation in UK and German manufacturing. In particular, the paper examines the extent to which UK and German plants engage in inter-plant collaboration and cooperation and multifunctional working as part of their innovative activity, and explores the reasons for differences in these patterns of involvement. The investigation is based on a large-scale, comparative survey of manufacturing plants in the two countries. In Germany, institutional and social norms are found to encourage collaborative inter-plant innovation, but aspects of the German skills training and industrial relations systems make the adoption of more flexible internal systems more difficult. In the UK, by contrast, the more adversarial nature of inter-firm relations makes it more difficult to establish external collaborations based on mutual trust, but less restrictive labour market structures make it easier for UK plants to adopt multifunctional working. This is linked to differences in attitudes to the property rights and transaction cost problems inherent in innovation.

From national innovation systems to national innovation capacity:internationalisation and technology transfer perspectives

The last decade or so has witnessed the emergence of the national innovation system (NIS) phenomenon. Since then, many scholars have investigated NIS and its implementation in different countries. However, there are very few investigations into the relationship between the NIS of a country and its national innovation capacity. This paper aims to make a contribution in this area by examining the link that currently exists between these two topics. Whilst examining this relationship, we also explore internationalisation and technology transfer, being cognate areas that have been investigated during the same period. This follows our assertion that the link between NIS and national innovation capacity is the mechanism of internationalisation and technology transfer. The NIS approach was introduced in the late 1980s (see Freeman, 1987; Dosi et al., 1988) and further elaborated later (see Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Edquist, 1997). In essence, a country?s NIS is a historically grown subsystem of the entire national economy consisting of organisations and institutions which play a major role in the innovative activity in the country. In the NIS approach, interactions within organisations as well as the interplay between organisations and institutions are of central importance. The NIS approach has been used to reveal the structure of the innovation processes and the main actors involved in them in industrialised and emerging countries. Although the national focus remains strong, it has been accompanied by studies seeking to analyse the notion of systems of innovation at an international level and at a sub-national scale (Archibugi et al., 1999). Dosi in the edition of Archibugi et al. (1999) argues that the general background of the discussion of national systems is the observation of non-random distributions across countries of: corporate capabilities; organisational forms; strategies; and ultimately revealed performances, in terms of production efficiency and inputs productivities, rates of innovation, rates of adoption/diffusion of innovation themselves, dynamics of market shares on the world markets, growth of income and employment. They also mention that there are several approaches to NIS. Nelson (1993) focuses upon the specificities of national institutions and policies supporting directly or indirectly innovation, diffusion and skills accumulation. Patel and Pavitt (1991) have stressed the links between the national patterns of technological accumulation and the competencies and innovative strategies of a few major national companies. Amable et al (1997) and Soskice (1993) and Zysman (1994) focus on the specifics of national institutions including, for example, the forms of organization, financial and labour markets, training institutions, forms of state intervention in the economy etc. However, the most common reference is by Lundvall (1992) who argues that the focus on the national level is associated with the fact that national economies vary according to their production system and their institutional framework and these differences are in turn strengthened by different historical experiences, language and culture. On the other hand, the national innovation capability consists of abilities to create and carry new technological possibilities through to economic practice. The term covers a wide range of activities from capability to invent to capability to innovate and to capability to improve existing technology beyond the original design parameters (Kim, 1997). The term innovation is often associated by many with technological change at international frontiers. However, technological capability is not the same as innovation capability. Technological capability refers to assimilation, use, adaptation, and change to existing technologies. It also enables the creation of new technologies and development of new products and processes in response to changing economic environments. It denotes operational command over knowledge (Kim, 1997). It is manifested not merely by the knowledge possessed, but, more important, by the uses to which that knowledge can be put and by the proficiency with which it is applied in the activities of investment and production and in the creation of new knowledge (Westphal et al., 1985). Therefore, the analytical framework that is used in this paper is based on the way a country derives from its NIS a national innovation capacity. There are two perspectives that are identified on this way. These are internationalisation and technology transfer. Even though NIS is not directly related to national innovation capacity, to achieve national innovation capacity from NIS, the country should have the ability for technology transfer. Technology transfer is a link between these two phenomena. On the other hand, internationalisation can be either the input or the output of the relationship between NIS and national innovation capability. If a company is investing in a country because of its national innovation capacity, this can be regarded as an input to the relationship between NIS and national innovation capacity. If this company is investigating the national innovation capacity of a country then, for its internationalisation, the national innovation capacity should be important, which in turn means this company is active in innovation and innovation is also an important success factor. The interrelationship between the investment of the company and the NIS of the country (assuming that the country is competent and competitive in technology transfer) will generate and improve that country?s national innovation capacity. This is the output of internationalisation from the relationship between NIS and national innovation capacity. When companies are evaluating whether to internationalise, they investigate certain factors in the countries in which they are considering to invest. The ability to transfer technology is dependent on ability to adopt a new technology and also on the learning derived from this technology. If countries wish to attract innovation related investment they need to show their ability to have a NIS and also the capability to transfer technology. Without the technology transfer capability, the NIS is not functioning. Therefore, companies that internationalise will investigate the factors common to NIS, technology transfer, and their business needs. Through this paper we will demonstrate this link though its mechanisms. Our research will be through extensive literature review and identifying relevant aspects of previous research carried out by the authors. It will investigate certain factors of different countries that are successful in attracting innovation related foreign direct investment. Through these, we will point out the factors that are important for the link and mechanisms of NIS and national innovation capability.

A study of inputs and their influence on technological innovative activity

Technological innovation has been widely studied: however surprisingly little is known about the experience of managing the process. Most reports tend to be generalistic and/or prescriptive whereas it is argued that multiple sources of variation in the process limit the value of these. A description of the innovation process is given together with a presentation of what is knovrn from existing studies. Gaps identified in this area suggest that a variety of organisational influences are important and an attempt is made to identify some of these at individual, group and organisational level. A simple system model of the innovation management process is developed. Further investigation of the influence of these factors was made possible through an extended on-site case study. Methodology for this based upon participant observation coupled wth a wide and flexible range of techniques is described. Evidence is presented about many aspects of the innovation process from a number of different levels and perspectives: the attempt is to demonstrate the extent to which variation due to contingent influences takes place. It is argued that problems identified all relate to the issue of integration. This theme is also developed from an analytical viewoint and it is suggested that organisational response to increases in complexity in the external environment will be to match them with internal complexity. Differentiation of this kind will require extensive and flexible integration, especially in those inherently uncertain areas associated with innovation. Whilst traditionally a function of management, it is argued that integration needs have increased to the point where a new specialism is required. The concept of integration specialist is developed from this analysis and attempts at simple integrative change during the research are described. Finally a strategy for integration - or rather for building in integrative capability - ln the organisation studied is described.

The innovation value chain in new technology based firms:evidence from the UK

We present the first innovation value chain analysis for a representative sample of new technology based firms (NTBFs) in the UK. This involves determining which factors lead to the usage of different knowledge sources and the relationships that exist between those sources of knowledge; the effect that each knowledge source has on innovative activity; and how innovation outputs affect the performance of NTBFs. We find that internal and external knowledge sources are complementary for NTBFs, and that supply chain linkages have both a direct and indirect effect on innovation. NTBFs’ skill resources matter throughout the innovation value chain, being positively associated with external knowledge linkages and innovation success, and also having a direct effect on growth independent of the effect on innovation. Exporting matters for performance, but not through any effect on innovation.

Service innovation, embeddedness and business performance:UK regional evidence

This paper asks to question. First, what types of linkages make firms in the service sector innovate? And second, what is the link between innovation and the firms’ productivity and export performance? Using survey data from Northern Ireland we find that links intra-regional links (i.e. within Northern Ireland) to customers, suppliers and universities have little effect on innovation, but external links (i.e. outside Northern Ireland) help to boost innovation. Relationships between innovation, exporting and productivity prove complex but suggest that innovation itself is not sufficient to generate productivity improvements. Only when innovation is combined with increased export activity are productivity gains produced. This suggests that regional innovation policy should be oriented towards helping firms to innovate only where it helps firms to enter export markets or to expand their existing export market presence.