Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:31:27.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Foreign Ownership On Innovation Activities: Empirical Evidence for Twelve European Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Martin Falk
Martin Falk*
Affiliation:
WIFO, Arsenal Objekt 20, A-1030 Vienna
*
e-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present study we investigate the relationship between foreign ownership and innovation activities using the firmlevel data of the third Community Innovation Survey (CIS) covering twelve European countries. Probit estimates based on 28,000 firms' observations show that foreign-owned firms are more innovative than domestic firms, particularly in the New EU Member States. However, results from the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition of the differences in the percentage of innovating firms between foreign-owned and domestic firms reveals that the differences are mainly due to the different firm characteristics rather than the differences in coefficients. In particular, the dominance of foreign-owned firms in the largest firm size group is the main factor contributing to the gap in the percentage of innovators between foreign-owned firms and domestic firms. Furthermore, using the fractional logit model, we find that in the New EU Member states, foreign ownership has a positive and significant impact on the share of market novelties as well as on the share of new products in turnover. In this case, the results from the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis indicate that the ownership difference in the share of innovative sales is not due to the differences in the observed firms' characteristics.

Keywords

Foreign ownershipmultinational firmsproduct and process innovationsF23C24C25L2O3
Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 204 , April 2008 , pp. 85 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 National Institute of Economic and Social 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.)

References

Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (1987), ‘Innovation, market structure and firm size’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, pp. 567–75.Google Scholar
-(1988), ‘Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis’, American Economic Review, 78, pp. 678–90.Google Scholar
Balcet, G. and Evangelista, R. (2005), ‘Global technology: innovation strategies of foreign affiliates in Italy’, Transnational Corporations, 14, 2, pp. 53–92.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. and Kleinknecht, A. (1996), ‘Firm size, small business presence and sales of innovative products: a micro-econometric analysis’, Small Business Economics, 8, 3, pp. 189- 201, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. (1995), ‘Empirical studies of innovative activity’ in Stoneman, P. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, W.M. and Klepper, S. (1996), ‘Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, 2, pp. 232–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W.M. and Levin, R.C. (1989), ‘Empirical studies of innovation and market structure’, in Schmalensee, R. and Willig, R.D. (eds), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. II, Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
European Commission and Eurostat (2004), Innovation in Europe. Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway. Data 1998-2001, Luxembourg EUR-OP.Google Scholar
Fairlie, R. (1999), ‘The absence of the African-American owned business: an analysis of the dynamics of self-employment’, Journal of Labor Economics, 17, 1, pp. 80–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-(2005), ‘An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition technique to logit and probit models’, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 30, pp. 305–16.Google Scholar
Frenz, M. and Ietto-Gillies, G. (2007), ‘Does multinationality affect the propensity to innovate? An analysis of the Third UK Community Innovation Survey’, International Review of Applied Economics, 21, 1, pp. 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, R., Redding, S. and Simpson, H. (2004), ‘Foreign ownership and productivity: new evidence from the service sector and the R&D lab’, CEP Discussion Papers dp0649, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, R., Huergo, E., Mairesse, J. and Peters, B. (2006), ‘Innovation and productivity across four European countries’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22, 4, pp. 483–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jann, B. (2006), ‘Fairlie - nonlinear decomposition of binary outcome differentials’, Software module available in Stata.Google Scholar
Janz, N., Lööf, H. and Peters, B. (2004), ‘Firm-level innovation and productivity - is there a common story across countries?’, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2, pp. 184–204.Google Scholar
Kleinknecht, A.van Montfort, K. and Brouwer, E. (2002), ‘The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11, 2, pp. 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H. and von Hippel, E. (2000), ‘Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market’, Management Science, 46, 12, pp. 1513–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaxaca, R. and Ransom, M. (1994), ‘On discrimination and the decomposition of wage differentials’, Journal of Econometrics 61, pp. 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oecd (1998), Internationalisation of Industrial R&D: Patterns and Trends, Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard (2003), Towards a Knowledge-Based Economy, Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
Papke, L.E. and Wooldridge, J.M. (1996), ‘Econometric models for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) participation rates’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11, 4, pp. 619–32.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavitt, K., Robinson, M. and Townsend, J. (1987), ‘The size distribution of innovating firms in the UK: 1945-1983’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 3, pp. 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadowski, B.M. and Sadowski-Rasters, G. (2006), ‘On the innovativeness of foreign affiliates: evidence from companies in The Netherlands’, Research Policy, 35, 3, pp. 447–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B. (1999), ‘Make or buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms’, Research Policy, 28, pp. 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (1988), The Sources of Innovation, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar