Firm ownership and size versus innovation activities over the business cycle: near-zero inertia as a sign of the transition from the fifth to the sixth Kondratieff wave
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2019.033Abstract
Research background: The innovation activity of Polish industrial processing enterprises is examined in a broader time context than typical business cycle frames, which makes it possible to look at the investigated problems from the perspective of Kondratieff waves.
Purpose of the article: The aim of the research is to describe the combined effect of mutual interactions between the ownership and size of Polish industrial processing enterprises on the goals of innovative activity and their degree of importance for the further development of the innovativeness of those firms. These relations are examined in various phases of the business cycle. Additionally, taking secular changes into account made it possible to lend credence to the claim that the global financial crisis is a typical phenomenon for the breakthrough period between two Kondratieff waves.
Methods: A characteristic feature of the applied method is the focus on the combined effect of the enterprise type and ownership structure on firms? innovation over three periods: prosperity 2004?2006, crisis 2008?2010 and recovery 2012?2014. As regards statistical techniques, the Pearson?s ?^2 independence test and correspondence analysis were applied. The results of the research are presented in a graphic form in three- and two-dimensional correspondence maps, which indicate the co-occurrence of (1) ownership sectors and enterprise types taken together, and (2) effects (goals) of the innovative activity of enterprises, together with the degree of their influence (importance) for further innovative activity. Mutual interactions between ownership sectors and enterprise types were visually analysed, indicating significant features of the triangles representing them.
Findings & Value added: A significant combined effect of the ownership sectors and enterprise types on firms? innovative activity was found. There was a certain type of dynamic equilibrium between those variables, which changes depending on the business cycle phase. In the global financial crisis of 2008?2010, a surprising phenomenon was found, consisting of the growth of innovative activity in most enterprises as compared to the period of prosperity in 2004?2006. The enterprises achieved the goals assumed, and the degree of their importance proved the significant influence on further innovative activity of those firms. Additionally, it was demonstrated that in the period of recovery (2012?2014) mutual interactions between ownership and size eliminated the relationship between those variables and the goals of innovative activity, and eco-innovations proved to be directly subordinated to traditional types of innovations, mainly product and process innovations. Changes occurring in the last of the examined periods are related to the near-zero inertia of the entire industrial processing section, which allows to interpret the global financial crisis as a typical phenomenon for a breakthrough marking the end of one Kondratieff wave and the beginning of the next. Moreover, 2015 is identified as the year of breakthrough, ending the Fifth and beginning the Sixth Kondratieff Wave, which was related to the transition from the information and telecommunications revolution to the biomedical-hydrogen revolution. The calculations presented in this paper are consistent with those forecasts.
Downloads
References
Abazi-Alili, H. (2014). Innovation activities and firm performance: empirical evidence from transition economies. Journal of Contemporary Economic and Business Issues, 1(2).
View in Google Scholar
Aggarwal, A. (2018). The impact of foreign ownership on research and development intensity and technology acquisition in Indian industries: pre and post global financial crisis. Asian Development Review, 35(1). doi: 10.1162/adev_ a_00103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/adev_a_00103
View in Google Scholar
Balsarı, Ç. K., Varan, S., & Özkan, S. (2015). Impact of foreign ownership on innovation. Journal of Economics and Management, 20(A).
View in Google Scholar
Beh, E. J., & Lombardo, R. (2014). Correspondence analysis: theory, practice and new strategies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118762875
View in Google Scholar
Bitler, M. P., Moskowitz, T. J., & Vissing-Jørgensen, A. (2005). Testing agency theory with entrepreneur effort and wealth. Journal of Finance, 60(2). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00739.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00739.x
View in Google Scholar
Brossard, O., Lavigne, S., & Sakinç, M. E. (2013). Ownership structures and R&D in Europe: the good institutional investors, the bad and ugly impatient shareholders. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4). doi: 10.1093/icc/dtt018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtt018
View in Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1872). Through the looking-glass, and what Alice found there. London: Macmillan and Co.
View in Google Scholar
Commission Regulation (EU) No. 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty. Official Journal of the European Union, L 187/1, 26.6.2014.
View in Google Scholar
Decker, C., & Günther, C. (2017). The impact of family ownership on innovation: evidence from the German machine tool industry. Small Business Economics, 48(1). doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9775-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9775-0
View in Google Scholar
Démurger, S., Li, S., & Yang, J. (2012). Earnings differentials between the public and private sectors in China: exploring changes for urban local residents in the 2000s. China Economic Review, 23(1). doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2011.08.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2011.08.007
View in Google Scholar
Dzikowski, P. (2013). Size and ownership of enterprise and innovation activities of food and beverages manufacturers in western Poland in 2009–2012. Management, 17(1). doi: 10.2478/manment-2013-0008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/manment-2013-0008
View in Google Scholar
Dzikowski, P. (2014). The impact of a firm’s size and its ownership on innovation activity in medium-high and high technology sectors. Global Management Journal, 6(1–2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/manment-2014-0028
View in Google Scholar
Falk, M. (2008). Effects of foreign ownership on innovation activities: empirical evidence for twelve European countries. National Institute Economic Review, 204(1). doi: 10.1177/00279501082040011001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00279501082040011001
View in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. (2014). Correspondence analysis: exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.). Corpus methods for semantics: quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
View in Google Scholar
Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence analysis in practice. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC – Taylor & Francis Group. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011234
View in Google Scholar
Grinin, L. E., & Grinin, A. L. (2014). The sixth Kondratieff wave and the cybernetic revolution. In. L. E. Grinin, T. C. Devezas & A. V. Korotayev (Eds.). Kondratieff waves. Juglar – Kuznets – Kondratieff. Yearbook. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House.
View in Google Scholar
Hall, B. H., & Jaffe, A. B. (2018). Measuring science, technology, and innovation: a review. Annals of Science and Technology Policy, 2(1). doi: 10.1561/110. 00000005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1561/110.00000005
View in Google Scholar
Huang, Y., Salike, N., Yin, Z., & Zeng, D. Z. (2017). Enterprise innovation in China: does ownership or size matter? RIEI Working Papers Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Research Institute for Economic Integration, 2017-06.
View in Google Scholar
Jakimowicz, A., & Rzeczkowski, D. (2019a). Diversification of innovation strategies of Polish industrial processing enterprises depending on their size after the global financial crisis. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(4). doi: 10.7341/20191542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7341/20191542
View in Google Scholar
Jakimowicz, A., & Rzeczkowski, D. (2019b). Do barriers to innovation impact changes in innovation activities of firms during business cycle? The effect of the Polish Green Island. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 14(4). doi: 10.24136/eq.2019.030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2019.030
View in Google Scholar
Kondratieff, N. D. (1935). The long waves in economic life. Review of Economics and Statistics, 17(6). doi: 10.2307/1928486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1928486
View in Google Scholar
McHugh, M. L. (2013). The Chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2). doi:10.11613/BM.2013.018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.018
View in Google Scholar
Minetti, R., Murro, P., & Paiella, M. (2015). Ownership structure, governance, and innovation. European Economic Review, 80. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015. 09.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.09.007
View in Google Scholar
Nefiodow, L., & Nefiodow, S. (2014). The sixth Kondratieff. The growth engine of the 21st century. In L. E. Grinin, T. C. Devezas & A. V. Korotayev (Eds.). Kondratieff waves. Juglar – Kuznets – Kondratieff. Yearbook. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House.
View in Google Scholar
Nenadić, O., & Greenacre, M. J. (2007). Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: the ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(3). doi: 10.18637/jss.v020.i03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i03
View in Google Scholar
Ortega-Argilés, R., Moreno, R., & Caralt, J. S. (2005). Ownership structure and innovation: is there a real link? Annals of Regional Science, 39(4). doi: 10.1007/s00168-005-0026-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-005-0026-6
View in Google Scholar
Pererva, P., Schimpf, K., & Gladenko, I. (2010). Monitoring of efficiency of innovative activity of industrial enterprise. Club of Economics in Miskolc. Theory, Methodology, Practice, 6(2).
View in Google Scholar
Rehman, N.U. (2017). Self-selection and learning-by-exporting hypotheses: micro-level evidence. Eurasian Economic Review, 7(1). doi: 10.1007/s40822-016-0063-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-016-0063-8
View in Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: a theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process (Vols. 1–2). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
View in Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.
View in Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
View in Google Scholar
Succurro, M. & Costanzo, G.D. (2019). Ownership structure and firm patenting activity in Italy. Eurasian Economic Review, 9(2). doi: 10.1007/s40822-018-0109-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-018-0109-1
View in Google Scholar
Šmihula, D. (2009). The waves of the technological innovations of the modern age and the present crisis as the end of the wave of the informational technological revolution. Studia Politica Slovaca, 1.
View in Google Scholar
Šmihula, D. (2010). Waves of technological innovations and the end of the information revolution. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 2(4).
View in Google Scholar
Šmihula, D. (2011). Long waves of technological innovations. Studia Politica Slovaca, 2.
View in Google Scholar
Sourial, N., Wolfson, C., Zhu, B., Quail, J., Fletcher, J., Karunananthan, S., Bandeen-Roche, K., Béland, F., & Bergman, H. (2010). Correspondence analysis is a useful tool to uncover the relationships among categorical variables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(6). doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.008
View in Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. (1973). A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1973(1).
View in Google Scholar
