Does a foreign subsidiary's network status affect its innovation activity? Evidence from post-socialist economies

A detailed questionnaire survey among 809 foreign subsidiaries in five post-socialist economies (East Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Croatia) is used to study determinants of innovation activity of foreign subsidiaries. Survey data comprise traditional firm innovation activity determinants and indicators of a foreign subsidiary status. Our findings demonstrate that foreign subsidiaries are relatively independent as far as innovation activity is concerned, while at the same time subsidiaries with better access to foreign parent companies R&D results are more likely to innovate. Important differences, however, are found in factors that determine product and process innovation: (i) subsidiaries that invest more in R&D exhibit higher probability for product but not for process innovation; (ii) acquisition of external knowledge and company size have significant and positive impact on on process innovation only, (iii) transfer of responsibilities from headquarters to subsidiaries and foreign investor being a MNE is conducive to process innovation; (iv) marketseeking motivation of foreign investors has a negative impact on product innovation status; (v) higher age of subsidiary is positive for its process innovation, i.e. a foreign investor needs some time to initiate innovation activities in a subsidiary.Una minuciosa encuesta realizada a 809 filiales en cinco economías post-socialistas (Alemania Oriental, Polonia, Rumania, Eslovenia y Croacia) ha servido de base para estudiar los factores determinantes de la actividad innovadora de las filiales extranjeras. Los datos de la encuesta incluyen los determinantes tradicionales de la actividad innovadora de las empresas así como los indicadores del estatus de la filial extranjera. Nuestros resultados demuestran que las filiales extranjeras son relativamente independientes en cuanto a su actividad innovadora, mientras que al mismo tiempo las filiales con un mejor acceso a los resultados de I+D de las empresas matrices son más propensas a innovar. Se encuentran, sin embargo, importantes diferencias en los factores que determinan los productos y los procesos de innovación: i) las filiales que más invierten en I + D presentan mayor probabilidad para la innovación en productos, pero no en los procesos; ii) la adquisición de conocimientos externos y el tamaño de la empresa tienen un impacto significativo y positivo únicamente en el proceso de innovación; (iii) la transferencia de responsabilidades desde la sede a las filiales y el hecho de que el inversor extranjero sea una empresa multinacional contribuye a la innovación de procesos; (iv) la motivación de búsqueda de mercados por parte de los inversores extranjeros tiene un impacto negativo sobre el nivel de innovación de productos; (v) una mayor antigüedad de la filial es positiva para su proceso de innovación puesto que un inversor extranjero necesita algún tiempo para iniciar las actividades de innovación en una filial.Empresas transnacionales, inversión directa, redes, actividad innovadora, economias postsocialistas, Transnational firms, direct inversion, networks, innovation activity, post-socialist economies.

FDI Subsidiaries and Industrial Integration of Central Europe: Conceptual and Empirical Results

productivity gap, transition economies, foreign direct investment, firm-organisation technology transfer, economic catch-up development

The Growing Export Performance of Transition Economies: EU Market Access versus Supply Capacity Factors

The paper examines the reasons for the remarkable growth of transition economies’ export performance. We distinguish between foreign/EU market access and internal supply capacity factors. EU market access has been of great importance, while among supply capacity factors, stable institutional setup, structural reforms, and targeted FDI are in the forefront.Export performance, Transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe, (EU) market access, Supply capacity, Institutional setup, FDI.

Attractiveness of Western Balkan countries for FDI

Based on standard classification of competitive advantages of a country as investment location and complex international assessments of countries' competitiveness, the paper identifies competitive advantages and disadvantages of five Western Balkan countries (WB5), as FDI location. WB5 as a region lags behind EU27 and EU10 average in almost all relevant indicators of locational competitiveness. The identified competitive advantages of WB5 as a location for FDI are the following: stable macroeconomic environment, fast economic growth, geographical proximity to major EU markets, stable and relatively well developed financial system, relatively low cost and qualified labor, and EU Stabilization and Association Agreement with EU, CEFTA and other bilateral trade agreements. The most prominent weaknesses inhibiting more FDI inflows in WB5 are: small domestic market with low per capita income, relatively high country risk, slow progress in structural and institutional reforms, underdeveloped infrastructure, inefficient government bureaucracy and high administrative barriers. The papaer concludes that the main policy message arising from theoretical findings and empirical evidence suggest that the best way for WB5 to attract more FDI in the future is to strengthen the structural reforms and to speed up their EU approximation processes. Any specific FDI policies are only of a secondary importance

Improving Serbia’s business environment for more foreign and domestic investment

Serbia’s strong economic growth from the pre-crisis period, interrupted when the global financial crisis was transmitted to the country, is expected to be slower in the coming years than in the precrisis period, as the growth model based on high domestic consumption and foreign savings' financing is no longer possible. Creation of a favourable business environment is one of the key preconditions for attracting foreign and domestic investment, necessary for structural changes, economic recovery, and sustainable growth of Serbian economy. According to the several key international databases and surveys, Serbian business environment has a number of weaknesses. Its quality is lagging in a number of indicators not only behind the EU-10 region, but also behind the Western Balkans. The most prominent weaknesses of Serbian business environment, which inhibit the foreign and domestic in Serbia are: slow progress in structural and institutional reforms, poor implementation of laws, inefficient government bureaucracy, high level of corruption, and high administrative barriers in the area of construction permits, paying taxes and closing a business. The papaer concludes that the best way for Serbia to improve the quality of its business environment, is to speed up the reform process and to strengthen the structural and institutional reforms. Further progress with the EU accession process is also of great importance for the improvement of the business environment, improving the attractiveness of the country for domestic and foreign investment

Technology Transfer through FDI in Top-10 Transition Countries: How Important are Direct Effects, Horizontal and Vertical Spillovers?

The paper exploits a large set of more than 8,000 firms for ten advanced transition countries in order to uncover the importance of different channels of technology transfer through FDI and its impact on productivity growth of local firms. In addition to direct effects, we also distinguish between intra-industry (horizontal) and inter-industry (vertical) spillovers from foreign owned firms to local firms. After correcting for foreign investment selection bias and controlling for endogeneity of input demand (using a dynamic system GMM approach), direct FDI effects were found to provide by far the most important productivity effect for local firms in transition countries. Direct effects of FDI are found to provide on average an impact on firm’s productivity that is larger by factor 50 than the impact of backward linkages and by factor 500 larger than the impact of horizontal spillovers.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39934/3/wp549.pd

Technology Transfer through FDI in Top-10 Transition Countries: How Important are Direct Effects, Horizontal and Vertical Spillovers?

The paper exploits a large set of more than 8,000 firms for ten advanced transition countries in order to uncover the importance of different channels of technology transfer through FDI and its impact on productivity growth of local firms. In addition to direct effects, we also distinguish between intra-industry (horizontal) and inter-industry (vertical) spillovers from foreign owned firms to local firms. After correcting for foreign investment selection bias and controlling for endogeneity of input demand (using a dynamic system GMM approach), direct FDI effects were found to provide by far the most important productivity effect for local firms in transition countries. Direct effects of FDI are found to provide on average an impact on firm’s productivity that is larger by factor 50 than the impact of backward linkages and by factor 500 larger than the impact of horizontal spillovers.Foreign direct investments, technology transfer, spillovers, transition economies

A Policy Perspective

The paper deals with policy issues of knowledge spillovers via foreign direct investment (FDI) to help positioning CEEC economies in global shift in production and innovation. CEEC economies successfully attracted some FDI in R&D. However, considerable misalignment between domestic and foreign technological accumulation exists. This is partly related to the heterogeneity of foreign subsidiaries but even more so to weak performance and governance of national innovation systems as well as poor coordination of FDI and policies in the field of science and technology (S&T). The paper reviews existing relevant policy areas such as linkage promotion, R&D capabilities and technological linkages, horizontal policies, training incentives, as well as industrial, technological and science parks. The paper argues that an increased policy focus on technological aspects would not only improve the potential for technological spillovers from FDI but also the absorption capability of domestic firms. A way forward is to coordinate FDI policy better with R&D, innovation, and regional policy instruments. In this case, CEEC economies can use FDI as means to realign their national innovation systems with global knowledge creation and diffusion