Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T22:36:07.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Joint Effects of Ownership and Competition on the Relationship between Innovation and Productivity: Application of the CDM Model to the Chinese Manufacturing Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2020

Junguo Shi Open the ORCID record for Junguo Shi [Opens in a new window] ,
Bert Sadowski ,
Sihan Li  and
Önder Nomaler
Junguo Shi*
Affiliation:
Jiangsu University, China Seoul National University, South Korea
Bert Sadowski
Affiliation:
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Sihan Li
Affiliation:
Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
Önder Nomaler
Affiliation:
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands United Nations University, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Junguo Shi ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the basis of a rich panel data set of large- and medium-sized Chinese manufacturing enterprises, we observe that different types of firms (i.e., state-owned enterprises [SOEs], foreign-funded ownership [FFO] of firms, Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwanese [HMT] companies and privately-owned firms) exploit different stages of the innovation – productivity chain depending on the extent of market concentration. By applying a modified CDM model, this study reveals that SOEs tend to be more active in making innovative decisions and pursuing innovative investments but are less efficient in terms of innovation output and labour productivity, whereas FFO firms have relatively high labour productivity but are less active in the first three stages of the innovation – productivity chain. Market competition favours SOEs in the production of additional innovation products. Foreign firms are efficient in labour productivity if they are operating in a concentrated market. By using the metaphor of DNA, this study explains the heterogeneity among these different forms of ownership and generates several managerial implications.

摘要

摘要

本文采用中国大中型制造企业的面板数据，主要观察在市场竞争程度不同的环境中，不同所有制类型的企业（即国有企业、外资企业、港澳台企业和私有企业），在创新-生产率链的不同阶段的表现。本研究使用改进的CDM模型，研究结果显示，国有企业在制定创新决策和增加创新投入方面更为活跃，但其创新产出和劳动生产率相对较低。外资企业的劳动生产率相对较高，但在创新－生产率链的前三个阶段，其活跃程度较低。研究结果同时表明，市场竞争有利于国有企业生产更多的创新产品。在集中市场中运营时，外资企业的劳动生产率较高。本文通过使用DNA的隐喻，解释了不同所有制类型企业之间的异质性，并提出了一些管理启示。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

На основе широкого набора панельных данных из крупных и средних китайских производственных предприятий, мы отмечаем, что различные формы собственности компаний (т.е. государственные предприятия; предприятия с иностранным финансированием; компании из Гонконга, Макао и Тайваня, а также частные фирмы) используют различные этапы в инновационно-производственном процессе в зависимости от степени концентрации рынка. Опираясь на модифицированную CDM модель, данное исследование показывает, что государственные предприятия, как правило, более активно принимают инновационные решения и осуществляют инновационные инвестиции, но являются менее эффективными с точки зрения производства инноваций и производительности труда; в то время как предприятия с иностранным участием имеют относительно высокую производительность труда, но менее активны на первых трех этапах в инновационно-производственном процессе. Конкуренция на рынке благоприятствует государственным предприятиям в производстве дополнительных инновационных продуктов. Иностранные компании являются эффективными с точки зрения производительности труда, если они работают на рынке с высокой концентрацией. Используя метафору ДНК, это исследование объясняет неоднородность между различными формами собственности и делает некоторые выводы в сфере управления.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Sobre la base de un rico conjunto de datos de empresas manufactureras chinas grandes y mediana, observamos que diferentes tipos de empresas (es decir, empresas de propiedad estatal, propiedad financiada con fondos extranjeros de empresas, empresas de Hong Kong-Macao-Taiwán, y empresas de propiedad privada) explotan diferentes etapas de la innovación -la productividad en cadena depende del alcance de la concentración del mercado. Al aplicar un modelo modificado del CDM, este estudio revela que las empresas de propiedad temporal tienden a ser más activas en la toma de decisiones innovadoras y en la realización de inversiones innovadoras, pero son menos eficientes en términos de producción de innovación y productividad laboral, mientras que las empresas de propiedad financiada con fondos extranjeros tienen una productividad laboral relativamente alta, pero son menos activas en las tres primeras etapas de la innovación - la cadena de productividad. La competencia del mercado favorece a las empresas de propiedad estatal en la producción de productos de innovación adicionales. Las empresas extranjeras son eficientes en la productividad de la mano de obra si operan en un mercado concentrado. Mediante el uso de la metáfora del ADN, este estudio explica la heterogeneidad entre estas diferentes formas de propiedad y genera varias implicaciones gerenciales.

Keywords

CDM modelChinese manufacturing sectorcompetitionownership typeproductivityCDM模型中国制造业竞争所有制类型劳动生产率CDM моделькитайский производственный секторконкуренцияформа собственностипроизводительностьModelo CDMsector manufacturero chinocompetenciatipo de propiedadproductividad
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 769 - 789
Open Practices
Open data
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Jiangyong Lu

The Open Data badge recognizes authors who deposit their data (and statistical code, if necessary) in an open-access repository. The data used in this study can be found at [https://osf.io/gszr2/?view_only=50b19b41fccb477a906c79ff5efd61f8]. Details about the badge are available on the journal's website.

References

REFERENCES

Bai, C. E., Lu, J., & Tao, Z. 2009. How does privatization work in China? Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(3): 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benavente, M. J. 2006. The role of research and innovation in promoting productivity in Chile. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4–5): 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, B., & Collins, S. M. 2008. Accounting for growth: Comparing China and India. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(1): 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellacci, F. 2011. How does competition affect the relationship between innovation and productivity? Estimation of a CDM model for Norway. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(7): 637–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, V. Z., Li, J., Shapiro, D. M., & Zhang, X. 2014. Ownership structure and innovation: An emerging market perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crépon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairesse, J. 1998. Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2): 115–158.Google Scholar
Dachs, B., & Ebersberger, B. 2009. Does foreign ownership matter for the innovative activities of enterprises? International Economics and Economic Policy, 6(1): 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dachs, B., Ebersberger, B., & Lööf, H. 2008. The innovative performance of foreign-owned enterprises in small open economies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(4): 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duysters, G., Cloodt, M., Schoenmakers, W., & Jacob, J. 2015. Internationalisation efforts of Chinese and Indian companies: An empirical perspective. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 106(2): 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. 2007. Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional studies, 41(5): 685–697.Google Scholar
Friesenbichler, K., & Peneder, M. 2016. Innovation, competition and productivity. Economics of Transition, 24(3): 535–580.Google Scholar
Fu, X. 2015. China's path to innovation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C., & Sharif, N. 2009. Manufacturing dynamics and spillovers: The case of Guangdong Province and Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan (HKMT). Research Policy, 38(5): 813–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C., Wu, Y., Mohnen, P., & Zhao, Y. 2013. Government support, innovation and productivity in the Haidian (Beijing) District. UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. H., Huamao, B., Xiaojing, G., & Xiaoyun, Y. 2006. R&D performance in Chinese industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4–5): 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H., & Lee, K. 2018. Institutions matter differently depending on the ownership types of firms: Interacting effects on firm productivity in China. The Singapore Economic Review, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217590818500224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. 2014. Can market be exchanged for technology? An analysis of the path to upgrade China's science and technology. Comparative Economics & Social Systems, 175: 12–19.Google Scholar
Love, J. H., & Roper, S. 2001. Location and network effects on innovation success: Evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants. Research Policy, 30(4): 643–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. 2004. The importance of R&D for innovation: A reassessment using French survey data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1): 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narula, R., & Zanfei, A. 2005. Globalisation of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
OECD. 2009. Innovation in firms: A microeconomic perspective. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
Plümper, T., & Troeger, E.V. 2007. Efficient estimation of time-invariant and rarely changing variables in finite sample panel analyses with unit fixed effects. Political Analysis, 15(2): 124–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadowski, B. M., & Sadowski-Rasters, G. 2006. On the innovativeness of foreign affiliates: Evidence from companies in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 35(3): 447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siedschlag, I., & Zhang, X. 2015. Internationalisation of firms and their innovation and productivity. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 24(3): 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernon, R. 1966. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(6): 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, F., & Walker, G. 2015. How much does owner type matter for firm performance? Manufacturing firms in China 1998–2007. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4): 576–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, A., Zhang, Y., & Zhao, R. 2001. Impact of ownership and competition on the productivity of Chinese enterprises. Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(2): 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, F., Jiao, H., & Cai, H. 2018. Reappraisal of outbound open innovation under the policy of China's ‘Market for Technology’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar