Does inertia matter for parts manufacturers’ innovation?
- 368 Downloads
The current study investigates parts manufacturers’ innovative behavior from the population ecology perspective. Specifically, this paper proposes that firm level inertia and network level inertia matter in parts manufacturer’s innovation. Using data from auto parts manufacturers, we test four hypotheses, and the results show that firm level inertia indicated by age does not matter, while firm’s innovative inertia matters in parts manufacturers’ innovation. At the same time, we find that cluster can promote general parts firms’ innovation, but they will harm the innovative firms’ innovative behavior. These results contribute to our understanding of parts manufacturer’s innovation.
KeywordsParts manufacturers Inertia Innovation Population ecology
JEL ClassificationC81 D21 L62
The paper is a stage result of the project of Financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71172184 and No. 70872088) and is also supported by the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (No. 20100201110064). The authors are grateful to the Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, suggestions and help.
- Flyer, F., & Shaver, J. M. (2003). Location choices under agglomeration externalities and strategic interaction. Advances in Strategic Management, 20, 193–213.Google Scholar
- Genus, A. & Jha, P. (2012). The role of inertia in explanations of project performance: a framework and evidence from project-based organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 117–126.Google Scholar
- Greve, H. R. (1998). Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 55–86.Google Scholar
- March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). Macmillan: London.Google Scholar
- Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258–271.Google Scholar