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

Abstract

In the present study we investigate the relationship between foreign ownership and innovation activities using the firm-level 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 ownership multinational firms product and process innovations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (1987), `Innovation, market structure and firm size', Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, pp. 567-75.

-( 1988), `Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis' , American Economic Review, 78, pp. 678-90.

Balcet, G. and Evangelista, R. (2005), `Global technology: innovation strategies of foreign affiliates in Italy', Transnational Corporations, 14, 2, pp. 53-92.

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.

Cohen, W. (1995), `Empirical studies of innovative activity' in Stoneman, P. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

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.

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.

European Commission and Eurostat (2004), Innovation in Europe. Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway. Data 1998-2001, Luxembourg EUR-OP.

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.

10.

-( 2005), `An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition technique to logit and probit models', Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 30, pp. 305-16.

11.

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.

12.

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.

13.

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.

14.

Jann, B. (2006), `Fairlie - nonlinear decomposition of binary outcome differentials', Software module available in Stata.

15.

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.

16.

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.

17.

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.

18.

Oaxaca, R. and Ransom, M. (1994), `On discrimination and the decomposition of wage differentials', Journal of Econometrics 61, pp. 5-21.

19.

Oecd (1998), Internationalisation of Industrial R&D: Patterns and Trends, Paris, OECD.

20.

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard (2003), Towards a Knowledge-Based Economy, Paris, OECD.

21.

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.

22.

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.

23.

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.

24.

Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B. (1999), `Make or buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms', Research Policy, 28, pp. 63-80.

25.

Von Hippel, E. (1988), The Sources of Innovation, New York, Oxford University Press.