Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complementarities of Innovation Strategies: Evidence from Transition Economies

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Eurasian Economic Perspectives

Part of the book series: Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics ((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.

The original version of this chapter was revised. An erratum to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67916-7_34.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Firm performs at least one of the three forms of innovation; the specification does not clearly define which additional forms of innovation accompany the designated innovation form.

  2. 2.

    The countries in the study are: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

    The industries in the study are: Manufacturing (Food; Wood; Publishing, printing and recorded media; Chemicals; Plastics and Rubber; Non-metallic mineral products; Fabricated metal products; Machinery and equipment; Electronics; Precision instruments; Furniture); Retail; Other Services (Wholesale; IT; Hotel and restaurants; Services of motor vehicles; Construction section; Transport; Supporting transport activities; Post and telecommunications).

  3. 3.

    https://www.enterprisesurveys.org/

References

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Cohen, W., & Klepper, S. (1996). A reprise of size and R&D. The Economic Journal, 106(437), 925–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzarin, B. P., & Percival, J. C. (2006). Complementarities between organizational strategies and innovation. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 15(3), 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doran, J. (2012). Are differing forms of innovation complements or substitutes? European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Green, H. W. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. (2011). Innovation and productivity. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 2, 167–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., & Mairesse, J. (2006). Empirical studies of innovation in the knowledge driven economy. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 15(4/5), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kraft, K. (1990). Are product- and process-innovations independent of each other? Applied Economics, 22(8), 1029–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Ros, E., & Labeaga, J. (2009). Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities. European Management Review, 6(1), 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masso, J., & Vahter, P. (2012). The link between innovation and productivity in Estonia’s services sector. The Service Industries Journal, 32(16), 2527–2541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy and organization. American Economic Review, 80(3), 511–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Shannon, C. (1994). Monotone comparative statics. Econometrica, 62(1), 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miravete, E., & Pernías, J. (2006). Innovation complementarity and scale of production. Journal of Industrial Economics, 54(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: An update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohnen, P., & Roller, L. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, 49(6), 1431–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters, 5(4), 377–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Percival, J. C., & Cozzarin, B. P. (2008). Complementarities affecting the returns to innovation. Industry and Innovation, 15(4), 371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2006). Investigating the sources of process innovation among UK manufacturing firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(4), 653–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2011). Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with CMP. The Stata Journal, 11(2), 159–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topkis, D. M. (1978). Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Operations Research, 26(2), 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topkis, D. M. (1987). Activity optimization games with complementarity. European Journal of Operations Research, 28(3), 358–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topkis, D. M. (1998). Supermodularity and complementarity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. P. Gugushvili Institute of Economics, I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

    George Berulava & Teimuraz Gogokhia

Authors
  1. George Berulava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teimuraz Gogokhia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Berulava .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Political Sciences, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin

  2. MUFG Union Bank, San Francisco, California, USA

    Hakan Danis

  3. Faculty of Tourism, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ender Demir

  4. Eurasia Business & Economic Society, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ugur Can

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Berulava, G., Gogokhia, T. (2018). Complementarities of Innovation Strategies: Evidence from Transition Economies. In: Bilgin, M., Danis, H., Demir, E., Can, U. (eds) Eurasian Economic Perspectives. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, vol 8/2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67916-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation