IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v63y2017i11id230-2016-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of national culture on changes in R&D expenses among agrochemical firms

Author

Listed:
  • Michal JIRASEK

Abstract

Research and development (R&D) represents a significant expenditure and investment into the future competitiveness of a given firm. The behavioural theory of the firm assumes that these expenditures are subject to changes caused by performance feedback. This paper builds upon these assumptions and extends them by considering the possible effect of national cultures on the nature of these responses to the performance feedback. The research follows 119 firms from nine countries over the period 2001-2015 and analyses their behaviour using generalized linear mixed models. The findings mostly support an effect of national cultures, measured by Hofstede's cultural dimensions, on changes in R&D expenditure and indicate that national culture is one of the factors which needs to be taken into account when utilizing the behavioural theory of the firm.

Suggested Citation

  • Michal JIRASEK, 2017. "The influence of national culture on changes in R&D expenses among agrochemical firms," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 63(11), pages 524-530.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:63:y:2017:i:11:id:230-2016-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/230/2016-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/230/2016-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/230/2016-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/230/2016-AGRICECON?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Washburn & Philip Bromiley, 2012. "Comparing Aspiration Models: The Role of Selective Attention," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 896-917, July.
    2. Sandeep SINGH & Ravi KIRAN & Dinesh GOYAL, 2015. "Identification of key factors for enhancing competitiveness: an exploratory study of the selected agri-biotech firms of Punjab in India," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(4), pages 179-188.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Wei‐Ru Chen & Kent D. Miller, 2007. "Situational and institutional determinants of firms' R&D search intensity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 369-381, April.
    5. Lewellyn, Krista B. & Bao, Shuji ‘Rosey’, 2015. "R&D Investment in the Global Paper Products Industry: A Behavioral Theory of the Firm and National Culture Perspective," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-17.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mirela Cristea & Gratiela Georgiana Noja, 2019. "European agriculture under immigration effects: New empirical evidence," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(3), pages 112-122.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pasi Kuusela & Thomas Keil & Markku Maula, 2017. "Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource-consuming vs. resource-freeing organizational change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 1101-1120, May.
    2. Martínez-Noya, Andrea & García-Canal, Esteban, 2021. "Innovation performance feedback and technological alliance portfolio diversity: The moderating role of firms’ R&D intensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Abraham Carmeli & Ari Dothan & Dev Kumar Boojihawon, 2020. "Resilience of sustainability‐oriented and financially‐driven organizations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 154-169, January.
    4. Menghang Dong, 2017. "Does Corporate Political Activity Make Firms Less Risk Taking?," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 7(6), pages 1-1.
    5. Ohad Ref & Zur Shapira, 2017. "Entering new markets: The effect of performance feedback near aspiration and well below and above it," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(7), pages 1416-1434, July.
    6. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    7. Michael Lounsbury & Christine M. Beckman, 2015. "Celebrating Organization Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 288-308, March.
    8. Elisa Giuliani & Federica Nieri & Andrea Vezzulli, 2019. "BEST IN CLASS BUT BIG WRONGDOERS: Exploring the financial performance and human rights infringe ments nexus in large emerging country companies," Discussion Papers 2019/250, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    9. Alipour, Ali & Yaprak, Attila, 2022. "Indulgence and risk-taking behavior of firms: Direct and interactive influences," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2).
    10. Letian Zhang, 2019. "Who Loses When a Team Wins? Better Performance Increases Racial Bias," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 40-50, February.
    11. Guedes, Maria João & da Conceição Gonçalves, Vítor & Soares, Nuno & Valente, Marieta, 2016. "UK evidence for the determinants of R&D intensity from a panel fsQCA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5431-5436.
    12. Walrave, Bob & Gilsing, Victor A., 2023. "Game of skill or game of luck? Distant search in response to performance feedback," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    13. Mark DesJardine & Pratima Bansal, 2019. "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: How Negative External Evaluations Can Shorten Organizational Time Horizons," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 761-780, July.
    14. Guo, Jianquan & Cheng, He, 2024. "Performance feedback on sales growth and M&A: Evidence from China," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Saemundsson, Rögnvaldur & Candi, Marina & Sigurjonsson, Throstur Olaf, 2022. "The influence of performance feedback and top management team orientation on decisions about R&D in technology-based firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    16. Tom Van Caneghem & Walter Aerts & Oveis Madadian, 2021. "Peer‐based comparison and firms' discretionary cost decisions," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 163-185, March.
    17. Saridakis, Charalampos & Angelidou, Sofia & Woodside, Arch G., 2023. "How historical and social aspirations reshape the relationship between corporate financial performance and corporate social responsibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    18. Szu-Hsien Lin & You-Jie Chen & Tz-Li Wang & Ya-Chiu Angela Liu, 2012. "FDIs in life cycle stages: firm-level evidence from Taiwan," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 393-397, March.
    19. Lin-Hua Lu & Poh-Kam Wong, 2019. "Performance feedback, financial slack and the innovation behavior of firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 1079-1109, December.
    20. Lim, Elizabeth, 2018. "Social pay reference point, external environment, and risk taking: An integrated behavioral and social psychological view," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 68-78.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:63:y:2017:i:11:id:230-2016-agricecon. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.