IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/asieco/v95y2024ics1049007824001246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of heterogenous capabilities on export performance amid the digital transformation

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Kyunam
  • Chung, Hyuk

Abstract

We investigate the effects of adopting digital technology on export performance of Korean manufacturing firms amidst the digital transformation. We recognize firm-level capabilities should be closely associated with adoption of rapidly progressing digital technology but also with export performance. And our data indicates that the most common purpose of digital technology adoption is to launch new products to the market. Hence, we consider that technology adoption is a strategic and purposeful decision to gain competitive edge mostly by producing new product, and treating technology adoption exogenous can be misleading. Due to the endogeneity and selection issues in technology adoption, the endogenous switching regression is applied to this study as Coad et al. (2020). On technology adoption decision, we find external innovative resources from strategic alliance in addition to internal innovative capabilities stand out. Given technology adoption decision, internal capabilities like patent rights and international affiliation are complementary factors to export growth. The treatment effect analysis has implications as follows: the result on contribution of technology adoption to export growth for actually adopting firms is rather small, and shows heterogenous innovation, organizational, and external capabilities are still critical factors as much as new products embedding high-end digital technology; the result on non-adopting firms indicates potential of advanced digital technology to improve export performance by helping to produce such new products if they were actually capable to do it. In sum, our findings provide another evidence that structurally positive interaction between innovative activities and export performance as Aw et al. (2011), since adoption of digital technology to products itself is innovative in the digital transformation. Furthermore, the result is consistent with the capability theory in that heterogenous innovative and complementary capabilities determine strategic technology adoption and export performance simultaneously. Finally, our findings indicate that the digital transformation might be still at the early stage. The fact that Korean firms have adopted advanced digital technology mainly for new products can be interpreted as an indicator of early development stage of transformation, since firms concentrate on product innovation than process innovation to gain competitive edge at the early stage (Utterback and Abernathy, 1975). Thus, we expect that further evolution of digital transformation can facilitate process innovation, then contribute to firm performance by improving cost efficiency that should be tackled in the upcoming study.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Kyunam & Chung, Hyuk, 2024. "Impact of heterogenous capabilities on export performance amid the digital transformation," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:asieco:v:95:y:2024:i:c:s1049007824001246
    DOI: 10.1016/j.asieco.2024.101829
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049007824001246
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.asieco.2024.101829?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. Patrick Puhani, 2000. "The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 53-68, February.
    2. Bee Yan Aw & Mark J. Roberts & Daniel Yi Xu, 2011. "R&D Investment, Exporting, and Productivity Dynamics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1312-1344, June.
    3. Ilke Van Beveren & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2010. "Product and process innovation and firms' decision to export," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 3-24.
    4. Lin, Yini & Wu, Lei-Yu, 2014. "Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 407-413.
    5. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel & Sebastiano Cattaruzzo, 2022. "Innovation, productivity and learning induced by export across European manufacturing firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(5), pages 387-415, July.
    7. Peters, Bettina & Roberts, Mark J. & Vuong, Van Anh, 2022. "Firm R&D investment and export market exposure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    8. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    9. Erik Brynjolfsson & Xiang Hui & Meng Liu, 2019. "Does Machine Translation Affect International Trade? Evidence from a Large Digital Platform," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5449-5460, December.
    10. Love, James H. & Ganotakis, Panagiotis, 2013. "Learning by exporting: Lessons from high-technology SMEs," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-17.
    11. Rodil, Óscar & Vence, Xavier & Sánchez, María del Carmen, 2016. "The relationship between innovation and export behaviour: The case of Galician firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 248-265.
    12. Erik Brynjolfsson & Daniel Rock & Chad Syverson, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence and the Modern Productivity Paradox: A Clash of Expectations and Statistics," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 23-57, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Arrighetti, Alessandro & Landini, Fabio & Lasagni, Andrea, 2014. "Intangible assets and firm heterogeneity: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 202-213.
    14. Areti Gkypali & Kostas Tsekouras, 2015. "Productive performance based on R&D activities of low-tech firms: an antecedent of the decision to export?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(8), pages 801-828, November.
    15. Philippe Aghion & Benjamin F. Jones & Charles I. Jones, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 237-282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2019. "Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    17. Carlo Altomonte & Simona Gamba & Maria Luisa Mancusi & Andrea Vezzulli, 2016. "R&D investments, financing constraints, exporting and productivity," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 283-303, April.
    18. Kim, Kyunam & Kim, Yeonbae, 2015. "Role of policy in innovation and international trade of renewable energy technology: Empirical study of solar PV and wind power technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 717-727.
    19. Ilke Van Beveren & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2010. "Product and process innovation and firms' decision to export," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 3-24.
    20. Vu, Khuong & Hanafizadeh, Payam & Bohlin, Erik, 2020. "ICT as a driver of economic growth: A survey of the literature and directions for future research," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2).
    21. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua S. Gans & Avi Goldfarb, 2019. "Artificial Intelligence: The Ambiguous Labor Market Impact of Automating Prediction," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 31-50, Spring.
    22. Greaker, Mads, 2006. "Spillovers in the development of new pollution abatement technology: A new look at the Porter-hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 411-420, July.
    23. Yasemin Y. Kor & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2000. "Penrose’s Resource‐Based Approach: The Process and Product of Research Creativity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 1-1, January.
    24. Falk, Martin & de Lemos, Francisco Figueira, 2019. "Complementarity of R&D and productivity in SME export behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 157-168.
    25. Michael Lokshin & Zurab Sajaia, 2004. "Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching regression models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 4(3), pages 282-289, September.
    26. David J. Teece, 2019. "A capability theory of the firm: an economics and (Strategic) management perspective," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(1), pages 1-43, January.
    27. Frank Crowley & Philip McCann, 2018. "Firm innovation and productivity in Europe: evidence from innovation-driven and transition-driven economies," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(11), pages 1203-1221, March.
    28. Emil Velinov & Milan Maly & Yelena Petrenko & Igor Denisov & Vasko Vassilev, 2020. "The Role of Top Management Team Digitalization and Firm Internationalization for Sustainable Business," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-11, November.
    29. Zhang, Hongsheng & Liu, Qingqing & Wei, Yueling, 2023. "Digital product imports and export product quality: Firm-level evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    30. Wakelin, Katharine, 1998. "Innovation and export behaviour at the firm level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 829-841, April.
    31. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1982. "The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 114-132, March.
    32. Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall & Patrik Karpaty, 2011. "Service-sector competition, innovation and R&D," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 63-88.
    33. De Loecker, Jan, 2007. "Do exports generate higher productivity? Evidence from Slovenia," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 69-98, September.
    34. Jinwan Cho & Eunmi Kim & Insik Jeong, 2023. "Adoption of the 4th Industrial Revolution: evidence from Korean exporters in international markets," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(1), pages 164-187, February.
    35. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    36. Ayman Wael AL-Khatib, 2023. "The determinants of export performance in the digital transformation era: empirical evidence from manufacturing firms," International Journal of Emerging Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(10), pages 2597-2622, January.
    37. Maddala, G.S., 1986. "Disequilibrium, self-selection, and switching models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1633-1688, Elsevier.
    38. Bee Yan Aw & Mark J. Roberts & Daniel Yi Xu, 2008. "R&D Investments, Exporting, and the Evolution of Firm Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 451-456, May.
    39. Dohse, Dirk & Niebuhr, Annekatrin, 2018. "How different kinds of innovation affect exporting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 182-185.
    40. Chen, Tain-Jy & Chen, Homin & Ku, Ying-Hua, 2012. "Resource dependency and parent–subsidiary capability transfers," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 259-266.
    41. Ida Merete Enholm & Emmanouil Papagiannidis & Patrick Mikalef & John Krogstie, 2022. "Artificial Intelligence and Business Value: a Literature Review," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1709-1734, October.
    42. Jože P. Damijan & Črt Kostevc & Sašo Polanec, 2010. "From Innovation to Exporting or Vice Versa?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 374-398, March.
    43. Alguacil, Maite & Lo Turco, Alessia & Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada, 2022. "Robot adoption and export performance: Firm-level evidence from Spain," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    44. James R. Brown & Steven M. Fazzari & Bruce C. Petersen, 2009. "Financing Innovation and Growth: Cash Flow, External Equity, and the 1990s R&D Boom," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(1), pages 151-185, February.
    45. Audretsch, David B & Stephan, Paula E, 1996. "Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 641-652, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wu, Lichao & Wei, Yingqi & Wang, Chengang & McDonald, Frank & Han, Xia, 2022. "The importance of institutional and financial resources for export performance associated with technological innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Wu, Lichao & Wei, Yingqi & Wang, Chengang, 2021. "Disentangling the effects of business groups in the innovation-export relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    3. Adriana Peluffo & Inmaculada Martinez-Zarzoso & Ernesto Silva, 2020. "New stuff or better ways: what matters to access international markets?," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 656-678, January.
    4. repec:lic:licosd:26410 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Adriana Peluffo & Ernesto Silva, 2016. "New Stuff or Better Ways: What Matters to Survive International Markets?," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 16-07, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    6. Richard Harris & John Moffat, 2011. "R&D, Innovation and Exporting," SERC Discussion Papers 0073, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    7. Peters, Bettina & Roberts, Mark J. & Vuong, Van Anh, 2022. "Firm R&D investment and export market exposure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    8. Kaz Miyagiwa & Aminata Sissoko, 2013. "The free-rider problem and the optimal duration of research joint ventures: theory and evidence from the Eureka program," Working Papers 1302, Florida International University, Department of Economics.
    9. Tomasz Brodzicki & Dorota Ciolek, 2016. "Creativity pays off. Innovation, innovation strategy, and internationalization," Working Papers 1601, Instytut Rozwoju, Institute for Development.
    10. Rossi, Stefania Patrizia Sonia & Bonanno, Graziella & Giansoldati, Marco & Gregori, Tullio, 2021. "Export starters and exiters: Do innovation and finance matter?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 280-297.
    11. Arneja, Nitika & Sharma, Chandan, 2024. "Dissecting performance gains from export-induced marketing and technological investments: Revisiting learning by exporting in Indian manufacturing," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. Falk, Martin & de Lemos, Francisco Figueira, 2019. "Complementarity of R&D and productivity in SME export behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 157-168.
    13. L. Benfratello & A. Bottasso & C. Piccardo, 2022. "R&D and export performance: exploring heterogeneity along the export intensity distribution," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(2), pages 189-232, June.
    14. Trinh, Long Q., 2016. "Dynamics of Innovation and Internationalization among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Viet Nam," ADBI Working Papers 580, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    15. Alex Coad & Nanditha Mathew & Emanuele Pugliese, 2017. "What's good for the goose ain't good for the gander: cock-eyed counterfactuals and the performance effects of R&D," LEM Papers Series 2017/21, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Dahai Fu & Yanrui Wu & Yihong Tang, 2012. "Does Innovation Matter for Chinese High-Tech Exports? A Firm-Level Analysis," Frontiers of Economics in China-Selected Publications from Chinese Universities, Higher Education Press, vol. 7(2), pages 218-245, June.
    17. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Grazzi, Marco & Moschella, Daniele & Pellegrino, Gabriele, 2022. "International patent protection and trade: Transaction-level evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    18. Silviano Esteve-Pérez & Diego Rodríguez, 2013. "The dynamics of exports and R&D in SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 219-240, June.
    19. Patrick Plane & Marie-Ange Véganzonès-Varoudakis, 2019. "Innovation, productivity, exports and the investment climate: A study based on Indian manufacturing firm-level data," Working Papers halshs-01990327, HAL.
    20. Rammer, Christian, 2023. "Measuring process innovation output in firms: Cost reduction versus quality improvement," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    21. Josep Tomàs-Porres & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2023. "Export and variability in the innovative status," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(2), pages 257-279, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology adoption; The digital transformation; Treatment effect; Endogenous switching regime;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O36 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Open Innovation
    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:asieco:v:95:y:2024:i:c:s1049007824001246. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/asieco .

    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.