Advertisement

Links Between Foreign Direct Investment and Innovation Activities in Estonia

  • Jaan Masso
  • Tõnu Roolaht
  • Urmas Varblane
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM, volume 15)

Abstract

There is a growing literature focusing on analyzing the productivity gap between domestic and foreign firms with differences in innovation indicators. In this chapter, we analyze the relationship between inward and outward foreign direct investment (FDI) at either company or industry level and the innovation behavior of companies in Estonia. We used company-level data from three waves of the Community Innovation Surveys, which were combined with financial data from the Estonian Business Register and FDI data from the Balance of Payments statistics. For the analysis, we used propensity score matching. Our results show that the higher innovation output of foreign-owned companies vanished after controlling for a number of company characteristics, but there were significant differences in innovation inputs, such as the higher use of knowledge sourcing and the lower importance of various impeding factors. Both domestic and foreign-owned firms with outward investments are more innovative.

Keywords

Foreign Direct Investment Propensity Score Match Domestic Firm Foreign Company Foreign Ownership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The article was partly written during the period when Jaan Masso was a visiting researcher at Eesti Pank (Bank of Estonia, the central bank of Estonia). We acknowledge the financial support given by the Ministry of Education and Research of the Republic of Estonia target financed project no. SF0180037s08 and Estonian Science Foundation grants no. 6853, 8311, and 7405. We are grateful for the comments made by the participants of seminars held Tallinn and Tartu, but also Jaanika Meriküll. We are also grateful to Eurostat for providing the Fourth Community Innovation Survey microdata to the University of Tartu; however, Eurostat had no responsibility for the results or conclusions of the paper. We are solely responsible for all errors and omissions.

References

  1. Aghion, P., N. Bloom, R. Blundell, R. Griffith, Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 701–728.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida, R., & Fernandes, A. M. (2006). Openness and technological innovations in developing countries: Evidence from firm-level surveys. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3985.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. (2001). External sources of technological innovation in Chilean manufacturing industry. Estudios de Economia, 28(1), 53–68.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, J. M., & Smarzynska Javorcik, B. (2005). Gifted kids or pushy parents? Foreign acquisitions and plant performance in Indonesia. CEPR Discussion Paper, 5065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barba Navaretti, G., Venables A., Barry, F., Ekholm, K., Falzoni, A., Haaland, J., Midelfart, K.-H., Turrini, A. (2004). Multinational firms in the world economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2005). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. IZA Discussion Paper, 1588.Google Scholar
  7. Criscuolo, C., Haskel, J., Slaughter, M. J. (2005). Global engagement and the innovation activities of firms. NBER Working Paper, 11479.Google Scholar
  8. Dachs, B., & Ebersberger, B. (2009). Does foreign ownership matter for the innovative activities of enterprises? International Economics and Economic Policy, 6(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dachs, B., Ebersberger, B., Lööf, H. (2008). The innovative performance of foreign-owned enterprises in small open economies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(4), 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdilek, A. (2005). R&D activities of foreign and national establishments in Turkish manufacturing. In M. Blomstrom, E. Graham, T. Moran (Eds.), The impact of foreign direct investment on development? (pp. 107–136). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  11. Falk, M. (2008). Effects of foreign ownership on innovation activities: Empirical evidence for twelve European countries. National Institute Economic Review, 204, 85–97.Google Scholar
  12. Falk, M., & Falk, R. (2006). Do foreign-owned firms have a lower innovation intensity than domestic Firms? Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) Working Paper, 275.Google Scholar
  13. Griffith, R., Redding, S., Simpson, H. (2004). Foreign ownership and productivity: New evidence from the service sector and the R&D lab. Institute for Fiscal Studies Working Papers, W04/22.Google Scholar
  14. Günther, J., Jindra, B., Stephan, J. (2009). FDI and the national innovation system : Evidence from emerging economies in Central and Eastern Europe. Globelics 2009 Conference, October 6–8, Dakar.Google Scholar
  15. Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., Todd, P. (1998). Matching as and econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johansson, B., & Lööf, H. (2005). FDI inflows to Sweden: Consequences for innovation and renewal. CESIS Electronic Working Paper, 36.Google Scholar
  17. Johansson, B., Lööf, H., Ebersberger, B. (2008). The innovation and productivity effect of foreign take-over of national assets. CESIS Electronic Working Paper, 141.Google Scholar
  18. Knell, M., & Srholec, M. (2006). Innovation cooperation and foreign ownership in the Czech Republic. The Online Proceedings of The First Conference on Micro Evidence on Innovation and Development (MEIDE). Google Scholar
  19. Kurik, S., Lumiste, R., Terk, E., and Heinlo, A. (2002), “Innovation in Estonian Enterprises”, Innovation Studies 2/2002, Enterprise Estonia.Google Scholar
  20. Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate testing. Statistical Software Components, S432001. Boston College Department of Economics. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html. Version 1.2.3. Accessed 20 February 2011.
  21. Markusen, J. R. (2002). Multinational firms and the theory of international trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Masso, J., Varblane, U., Vahter, P. (2008). The impact of outward FDI on home-country employment in a low-cost transition economy. Eastern European Economics, 46(6), 27–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meriküll, J. (2008). The impact of innovation on employment: Firm- and industry-level evidence from Estonia. Bank of Estonia Working Paper, 1/2008.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, K. E., & Sinani, E. (2009). When and where does foreign direct investment generate positive spillovers? A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7), 1075–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mickiewicz, T., Bishop, K., Varblane U. (2004). Financial constraints in investment: Panel data results from Estonia 1995–1999. Acta Oeconomica, 54(4), 425–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Narula, R., & Zanfei, A. (2005). Globalization of innovation: The role of multinational enterprises. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 318–348). Oxford, UK, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. OECD (2006). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2006. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD (2009). Innovation in firms: A microeconomic perspective. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenbaum, P., & D. Rubin (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rubin D. B. (1977). Assignment to a treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sadowski, B. M., & Sadowski-Rasters, G. (2006). On the innovativeness of foreign affiliates: Evidence from companies in The Netherlands. Research Policy, 35, 447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shrolec, M. (2009), “Does foreign ownership facilitate cooperation on innovation? Firm-level evidence from the enlarged European Union”, European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 21, pp. 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Srholec, M. (2006). Research and development activity of foreign affiliates in the Czech Republic. DIME Working Paper, 2006.Google Scholar
  34. Stiebale, J., & Reize, F. (2008) The impact of FDI on innovation in Target Firms. Ruhr Economic Papers, 50.Google Scholar
  35. Terk, E., Viia, A., Lumiste, R., Heinlo, A. et al. (2007). Innovation in Estonian Enterprises. Based on the Estonian results of the Fourth Community Innovation Survey (CIS4). Innovation Studies, 7/2007. Tallinn: Enterprise Estonia.Google Scholar
  36. Vahter, P. (2010). Does FDI spur innovation, productivity and knowledge sourcing of incumbent firms? Evidence from manufacturing industry in Estonia. GEP Working Paper, 2010/09. University of NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  37. Varblane, U., Mets, T., Ukrainski, K. (2008). Role of university–industry–government linkages in the innovation processes of a small catching-up economy. Industry & Higher Education, 22(6), 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vishwasrao, S., & Bosshardt, W. (2001). Foreign ownership and technology adoption: Evidence from Indian firms. Journal of Development Economics, 65(2), 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations