Search results

Although the theoretical arguments provide several channels through which innovation affects export, empirical validation of this relationship is scarce. Further, the impact of the diverse channels of domestic and foreign research and development (R&D) on export is assessed in isolation by previous studies. This paper empirically investigates the impact of technological innovation on export capacity and intensity of industrial enterprises in emerging countries by considering three channels of domestic innovation and foreign R&D spillovers, namely internal R&D, embodied knowledge and disembodied knowledge in a unified framework.

Data on China's industrial enterprises in the manufacturing sector are extracted from the China National Bureau of Statistics (NBSC), the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MST) and the UN Comtrade database for the period from 1998 to 2020. The instrumental variables two-stage least squares (IV-2SLS) and three-stage least squares (IV-3SLS) methods are used to control for the possible endogeneity bias and the problem of cross-equation correlation between residuals.

The results show that internal R&D is a critical factor to enhance the export performance of enterprises in emerging countries, while the effect of embodied spillovers and public–private collaboration on export capacity and intensity of industrial enterprises is substantial. Further, disembodied knowledge that is acquired through licensing of technology from advanced countries does not directly contribute to the export performance of enterprises but requires a threshold level of internal R&D capability. This study’s results also report a greater effect of embodied knowledge spillovers on export capacity and export intensity than internal R&D in emerging countries. The results are consistent to changes in the sample period and the estimation methods. The findings of the paper suggest that developing countries can speed up the process of export upgrading by relying on both domestic and foreign R&D efforts.

The findings would help policymakers to keep in mind the relative importance of internal R&D and embodied and disembodied knowledge spillovers for export performance before formulating a catch-up strategy and the outcome would encourage them to consider prior related knowledge in terms of internal R&D capability while acquiring external technology.

This study fills the gap in the existing literature by providing empirical validation of the innovation–export interplay and simultaneously assessing the effect of three diverse channels of technological innovation on the export performance of industrial enterprises. This paper enunciates important policy lessons for emerging countries' smooth transition to a knowledge-based economy.

This study aims to investigate whether there are disparities in research and development (R&D) internationalization between latecomers from economy-level technological disparities and firms with ownership-specific technological capability differences in the wind turbine industry.

Employing econometric analysis based on patent indicators, the authors examine the patent data assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to the technologically advanced economy and the technologically emerging economy.

This study finds that latecomers from technologically advanced economies behave with no difference from early leaders in terms of international co-invention (INCO) but do show differences in another indicator – native ownership of foreign inventors (NOFIs). Additionally, latecomers from economy-level technological disparity show significant differences both in both INCO and NOFI. These results indicate that the latecomers from technologically advanced economies not only possess the nature of latecomers which motivates them to seek knowledge from foreign economies but also benefit from their advanced home base, thereby prompting them to internationalize and access cost-effective R&D resources. Moreover, the results demonstrate that latecomers from technologically emerging economies are more prone to engage in R&D internationalization to augment their own home base compared with firms from advanced economy.

This study extends the literature on R&D internationalization by introducing novel perspectives. It distinguishes some apparent distinctions of the tendency of R&D internationalization between latecomers under economy-level technological disparity as well as firms from ownership-specific technological capabilities differences. Additionally, this study disaggregates R&D internationalization into twin key dimensions: INCO and NOFI. These findings allow for a comprehensive understanding of the differences in the firm's R&D internationalization under economy-level technological disparities and ownership-specific technological differences. These findings offer valuable insights for decision-makers in navigating global innovation activities by highlighting the diverse economy-level technological advantages as well as ownership-specific advantages.

The aim of this paper is to improve the understanding of strategies for how established companies can respond to disruptive innovation, handle increasing complexity, facilitate entrepreneurial culture and processes and successfully manage organizational ambidexterity.

A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted to explore successful practices of innovation ambidexterity (IA) and their organizational design, entrepreneurial culture and mindset, processes and leadership. Two internationally established firms that have launched and established IA programs provided deep insight, revealing their strategy and learning on the path toward effective IA.

The findings show that accepting and managing the inherent complexity increases within an ambidextrous organization strategy is a decisive factor in achieving effective IA. As a result, segmenting small organizational units and granting them extensive autonomy is proposed for managing the complexity of an organization while increasing its effectiveness. Furthermore, it is shown that this helps foster entrepreneurial culture, mindsets and processes as additional mediators for achieving effective IA. Coaching, empowerment and trust were identified as key factors of ambidextrous leadership values that encourage entrepreneurial behavior and decision-making.

To the best of the authors knowledge the first study connecting the research fields of complexity management, organizational ambidexterity theory and entrepreneurial culture while applying the fundamentals of systems theory to propose a practical management framework for successfully responding to disruptive innovation.

The purpose of this study is examined whether coproduction appears spontaneously in the literature on public sector innovation and governance, the citizens’ role in coproduction and the implication of citizens’ participation in the governance of innovation networks.

The review complied with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search was performed in the Ebsco, Scopus and WOS databases. The authors analyzed 47 papers published from 2017 to 2022. Thematic and content analysis were adopted, supported by MAXQDA.

The papers recognize the importance of the citizens in public innovation. However, only 20% discuss coproduction, evidencing the predominance of governance concepts related to interorganizational collaborations – but not necessarily to citizen engagement. The authors also verified the existence of polysemy regarding the concept of governance associated with public innovation, predominating the term “collaborative governance.”

The small emphasis on “co-production” may result from the search strategy, which deliberately did not include it as a descriptor, considering the research purpose. One can consider this choice a limitation.

Considering collaborative governance as a governing arrangement where public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative (Ansell and Gash, 2007), the forum where the citizen is supposed to be engaged should be initiated by public agencies or institutions and formally organized, as suggested by Österberg and Qvist (2020) and Campomori and Casula (2022). These notions can be useful for public managers concerning their role and how the forums structure should be to promote collaboration and the presence of innovation assets needed to make the process fruitful (Crosby et al., 2017).

Despite the collaborative nature of public innovation, the need for adequate governance characteristics, and the importance of citizens in the innovative process, most studies generically address collaborative relationships, focusing on interorganizational collaboration, with little focus on specific actors such as citizens in the governance of public innovation. Thus, it is assumed that the literature that discusses public innovation and governance includes the discussion of coproduction. The originality and contribution of this study is to verify this assumption.