Analysis of productivity differences among foreign and domestic firms:evidence from Germany

This paper presents differences in firm-level total factor productivity (TFP) across 22 manufacturing and 17 service industries in Germany over the period 1995–2004. It is an attempt to study whether and to what extent foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs) are more productive relative to German firms. As well as distinguishing between foreign and domestic firms, we also distinguish between German MNEs and domestic firms that do not have any foreign presence. Controlling for endogeneity through semi-parametric techniques, our findings indicate considerable heterogeneity in firm performance across types of firms. The foreign/domestic distinction is not as clear cut as has been suggested elsewhere; multinationality is important in explaining productivity differences rather than foreignness.

Institutions and firm ownership structure:evidence from Central and Eastern Europe

FDI plays a key role in development, particularly in resource-constrained transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe with relatively low savings rates. Gains from technology transfer play a critical role in motivating FDI, yet potential for it may be hampered by a large technology gap between the source and host country. While the extent of this gap has traditionally been attributed to education, skills and capital intensity, recent literature has also emphasized the possible role of institutional environment in this respect. Despite tremendous interest among policy-makers and academics to understand the factors attracting FDI (Bevan and Estrin, 2000; Globerman and Shapiro, 2003) our knowledge about the effects of institutions on the location choice and ownership structure of foreign firms remains limited. This paper attempts to fill this gap in the literature by examining the link between institutions and foreign ownership structures. To the best of our knowledge, Javorcik (2004) is the only papers, which use firm-level data to analyse the role of institutional quality on an outward investor’s entry mode in transition countries. Our paper extends Javorcik (2004) in a number of ways: (a) rather than a cross-section, we use panel data for the period 1997-2006; (b) rather than a binary variable, we use the percentage foreign ownership as continuous variable; (c) we consider multi-dimensional institutional variables, such as corruption, intellectual property rights protection and government stability. We also use factor analysis to generate a composite index of institutional quality and see how stronger institutional environment could affect foreign ownership; (d) we explore how the distance between institutional environment in source and host countries affect foreign ownership in a host country. The firm-level data used includes both domestic and foreign firms for the period 1997-2006 and is drawn from ORBIS, a commercially available dataset provided by Bureau van Dijk. In order to examine the link between institutions and foreign ownership structures, we estimate four log-linear ownership equations/specifications augmented by institutional and other control variables. We find evidence that the decision of a foreign firm to either locate its subsidiary or acquire an existing domestic firm depends not only on factor cost differences but also on differences in institutional environment between the host and source countries.

On the adoption decision and the intensity of use of complementary innovations: The intra firm diffusion of management practices across UK establishments

This paper contributes to the literature on the intra-firm diffusion of innovations by investigating the factors that affect the firm’s decision to adopt and use sets of complementary innovations. We define complementary innovations those innovations whose joint use generates super additive gains, i.e. the gain from the joint adoption is higher than the sum of the gains derived from the adoption of each innovation in isolation. From a theoretical perspective, we present a simple decision model, whereby the firm decides ‘whether’ and ‘how much’ to invest in each of the innovations under investigation based upon the expected profit gain from each possible combination of adoption and use. The model shows how the extent of complementarity among the innovations can affect the firm’s profit gains and therefore the likelihood that the firm will adopt these innovations jointly, rather than individually. From an empirical perspective, we focus on four sets of management practices, namely operating (OMP), monitoring (MMP), targets (TMP) and incentives (IMP) management practices. We show that these sets of practices, although to a different extent, are complementary to each other. Then, we construct a synthetic indicator of the depth of their use. The resulting intra-firm index is built to reflect not only the number of practices adopted but also the depth of their individual use and the extent of their complementarity. The empirical testing of the decision model is carried out using the evidence from the adoption behaviour of a sample of 1,238 UK establishments present in the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS). Our empirical results show that the intra-firm profitability based model is a good model in that it can explain more of the variability of joint adoption than models based upon the variability of adoption and use of individual practices. We also investigate whether a number of firm specific and market characteristics by affecting the size of the gains (which the joint adoption of innovations can generate) may drive the intensity of use of the four innovations. We find that establishment size, whether foreign owned, whether exposed to an international market and the degree of homogeneity of the final product are important determinants of the intensity of the joint adoption of the four innovations. Most importantly, our results point out that the factors that the economics of innovation literature has been showing to affect the intensity of use of a technological innovation do also affect the intensity of use of sets of innovative management practices. However, they can explain only a small part of the diversity of their joint adoption use by the firms in the sample.

Opportunism, hold-up and the (contractual) theory of the firm

This paper considers the role of opportunism in three contractual theories of the firm: rent-seeking theory, property rights theory, and agency theory. In each case I examine whether it is possible to have a functioning contractual theory of the firm without recourse to opportunism. Without opportunism firms may still exist as a result of issues arising from (incomplete) contracting. Far from posing a problem for the theory of the firm, questioning the role of opportunism and the ubiquity of the hold-up problem helps us understand more about the purpose and functions of contracts which go beyond mere incentive alignment.

Multinational firms, innovation and productivity

Book review: Multinational Firms, Innovation and Productivity, by Davide Castellani and Antonello Zanfei, Journal of International Business Studies, 2007.