Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Product innovation and R&D policy: the case of the transformation industries in developed and developing

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study analyzes some of the determinants of product innovation in the case of entrepreneurs from the transformation industries, using a model estimated via the Partial Least Square method, to establish whether these determinants change according to whether they are found in developed or developing countries. Such factors include human capital, technology, the degree of market competition, expectations or economic performance. The research also analyzes the effects these factors have on product innovation and some of the determining factors for innovation in the internationalization of entrepreneurial businesses from the transformation industries.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These authors use this term to refer to the quality of institutions and their economic effects.

  2. The GEM observatory distinguishes between four main sectors of activity: extractive, transformation, services to firms and consumer-based services. Thus, the transformation industries essentially include manufacturing and construction. The data were analyzed with basic descriptive statistical methods using SPSS software, merely with a view to separately obtaining data from entrepreneurs in the transformation industries.

  3. USA, Russia, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, UK, Norway and Finland.

  4. Romania, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovenia, Venezuela and Uruguay.

  5. These questions are: Do public policies help new firms? Are universities and public research centres efficient in transferring technology to entrepreneurial initiatives?.

  6. In this case, the responses are an average score from the responses of the experts, where the minimum value is 1 and the maximum is 5.

References

  • Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. The Journal of Economic History, 46(2), 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akehurst, G., Rueda-Armengot, C., López, S. V., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2011). Ontological supports of knowledge: knowledge creation and analytical knowledge. Management Decision, 49(2), 183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpkan, L., Bulut, C., Gundy, G., Ulusoy, G., & Kilic, K. (2010). Organizational support for intrapreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhance innovative performance. Management Decision, 48(5), 732–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersén, J. (2011). Strategic resources and firm performance. Management Decision, 49(1), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–625). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurial economics. Research on technological innovation. Management and Policy, 9, 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (2009). Capital emprendedor y crecimiento economico. Asociación española de ciencia regional. Investigaciones Regionales, 15, 27–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Fritsch, M. (2003). Linking entrepreneurship to growth: the case of west of German. Industry and Innovation, 10(1), 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling. Personal computer adoption and Use as an illustration. Technology studies. Special Issue on Research Methodology, 2(2), 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonet, F. J. P., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Pechuán, I. G. (2011). Basis for a general theory of organizations. Management Decision, 49(2), 270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levie, J. (2008). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2008 executive report. London: London Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambra-Fierro, J., Florin, J., Perez, L., & Whitelock, J. (2011). Inter-firm market orientation as antecedent of knowledge transfer, innovation and value creation in networks. Management Decision, 49(3), 444–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantarello, S., Nosella, A., Petroni, G., & Venturini, K. (2011). External technology sourcing: evidence from design-driven innovation. Management Decision, 49(6), 962–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, M. A., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2010). Adaption-innovation theory and knowledge use in organizations. Management Decision, 48(8), 1159–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M., & Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. C. Schmalensee & R. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization (pp. 1059–1107). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Escot, L., & Galindo, M. A. (1998). Difusión tecnológica, convergencia y crecimiento económico. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Documento de Trabajo, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R., & Miller, N. (1992). A primer for soft modelling. Akron: University of Akron Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransman, M. (1985). Conceptualizing technical change in the third world in the 1980s: an interpretive survey. Journal of Development Studies, 21(4), 572–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goktan, A. B., & Miles, G. (2011). Innovation speed and radicalness: are they inversely related? Management Decision, 49(4), 533–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonçalves, E., Borges, M., & De Negri, J. (2008). Condicionantes de la innovación tecnológica en Argentina y Brasil [Determinants of technological innovation in Argentina and Brazil]. Revista de la CEPAL, 94, 75–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1998). Issues in assesing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, patents and productivity (pp. 17–45). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadjimanolis, A. (2000). A resource-based view of innovativeness in small firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(2), 263–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. L., & Kung, F. H. (2011). Environmental consciousness and intellectual capital management: evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing industry. Management Decision, 49(9), 1405–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. Y., Chou, T. C., & Lee, G. G. (2010). Imitative innovation strategies: understanding resource management of competent followers. Management Decision, 48(6), 952–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. C., & Wu, Y. C. J. (2010). Intellectual capital and knowledge productivity: the Taiwan biotech industry. Management Decision, 48(4), 580–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagoda, K., Maheshwari, B., & Lonseth, R. (2010). Key issues in managing technology transfer projects: experiences from a Canadian SME. Management Decision, 48(3), 366–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafouros, M. I., Buckley, P. J., Sharp, J. A., & Wang, C. (2008). The role of internationalization in explaining innovation performance. Technovation, 28(1–2), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klette, T. J., Møen, J., & Griliches, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconomietric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29, 471–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach, S. (2002). Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(4), 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organizations: a dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: the long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72, 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, E., Lin, T. M. Y., & Lin, B. W. (2010). New high-tech venturing as process of resource accumulation. Management Decision, 48(8), 1230–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. C.W. Guillebaud. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848). El manifiesto comunista. Madrid. Alba (1998).

  • Menkveld, B., & Thurik, R. (1999). Firm size and efficiency in innovation: reply. Small Business Economics, 12(1), 97–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44, 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissan, E., Galindo, M. A., & Méndez, M. T. (2011). Relationship between organizations, institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth process. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 311–324. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0191-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roca, A. (2008). Las políticas de competitividad: industria, empresa y tecnología. In J. M. Jordán (Ed.), Economía de la Unión Europea [European Union Economy]. Navarra: Thonson-Civitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiavone, F. (2011). Strategic reactions to technology competition: a decision-making model. Management Decision, 49(5), 801–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1911). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenenhaus, M. (1998). La régression PLS: théorie et pratique. París: Technip.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M, (2000). R&D Policy in Israel: An Overview and Reassessment. The Foeder, Institute for Economic Research, DP 7. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7930. Accessed 25 May 2011.

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (2001). El viaje de la innovación. México: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Riel, A. C. R., Semeijn, J., Hammedi, W., & Henseler, J. (2011). Technology-based service proposal screening and decision-making effectiveness. Management Decision, 49(5), 762–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, S. (2000). The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the small business innovation research program. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, T. T., & Li, C. R. (2011). Competence exploration and exploitation in new product development: the moderating effects of environmental dynamism and competitiveness. Management Decision, 49(9), 1444–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Nielsen, A. (2002). Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 377–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Duan, Y. (2010). The impact of different types of market orientation on product innovation performance: evidence from Chinese manufacturers. Management Decision, 48(6), 849–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Economy, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain

    Maria-Soledad Castaño-Martínez

  2. Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Plaza de Universidad, 1, 02071, Albacete, Spain

    Maria-Soledad Castaño-Martínez

Authors
  1. Maria-Soledad Castaño-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria-Soledad Castaño-Martínez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Castaño-Martínez, MS. Product innovation and R&D policy: the case of the transformation industries in developed and developing. Int Entrep Manag J 8, 421–436 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0228-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0228-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation