IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/idb/brikps/13833.html

Competition and Distance to the Technological Frontier as Determinants of Innovation: A Multilevel Analysis for Latin America

Author

Listed:
  • Tacsir, Ezequiel
  • Pereira, Mariano
  • Favata, Federico
  • Leone, Julian

Abstract

Using a multilevel analysis and the new Harmonized Latin American Innovation Surveys Database (or LAIS database) augmented with indicators from the U.S. Census Bureau's Survey of Business Owners (SBO) and the World Banks World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS), this paper presents estimates of the effects of import competition and distance to the technological frontier on firm innovation in Latin American countries. Although innovation is recognized as a multilevel phenomenon, with investment decisions not solely affected by the firm characteristics but also by the context in which each firm is embedded, the empirical literature adopting a multilevel design is still nascent and scarce. Using a two-level random slope model allows us to overcome some of the pitfalls of traditional regression models when dealing with the hierarchical structure of data while allowing us to capture the influence of contextual factors. The results suggest that the fostering effect of foreign competition depends on the firms distance to the technological frontier. The estimates suggest that the lower the foreign competition and the greater the productivity gap, the lower the probability of firms engaging in innovation. In contrast, when a firm operates in a sector that is relatively closer to the technological frontier, firms invest in innovative activities to remain at the top. These results offer a clear and useful guide for designing policies in Latin America regarding innovation among firms. While it is important to promote and stimulate innovation efforts by firms, these factors should not be overlooked as considerations: sectoral characteristics associated with the economies, sectoral openness to foreign competition, and firms distance to the technological frontier.

Suggested Citation

  • Tacsir, Ezequiel & Pereira, Mariano & Favata, Federico & Leone, Julian, 2024. "Competition and Distance to the Technological Frontier as Determinants of Innovation: A Multilevel Analysis for Latin America," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13833, Inter-American Development Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:idb:brikps:13833
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0013250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Competition-and-Distance-to-the-Technological-Frontier-as-Determinants-of-Innovation-A-Multilevel-Analysis-for-Latin-America.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0013250?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    2. Martin Srholec, 2011. "A multilevel analysis of innovation in developing countries ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1539-1569, December.
    3. Nickell, Stephen J, 1996. "Competition and Corporate Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 724-746, August.
    4. Martin Srholec, 2010. "A Multilevel Approach to Geography of Innovation," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(9), pages 1207-1220.
    5. Micheline Goedhuys & Martin Srholec, 2015. "Technological Capabilities, Institutions and Firm Productivity: A Multilevel Study," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 27(1), pages 122-139, January.
    6. P. Mohnen & F. Palm & S. Loeff & A. Tiwari, 2008. "Financial Constraints and Other Obstacles: are they a Threat to Innovation Activity?," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 201-214, June.
    7. Gustavo Crespi & Elena Arias-Ortiz & Ezequiel Tacsir & Fernando Vargas & Pluvia Zuñiga, 2014. "Innovation for economic performance: the case of Latin American firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 4(1), pages 31-50, June.
    8. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    9. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    10. Roberto Alvarez & Gustavo A. Crespi, 2015. "Heterogeneous effects of financial constraints on innovation: Evidence from Chile," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 711-724.
    11. Mariia Molodchik & Carlos Jardon & Ekaterina Yachmeneva, 2021. "Multilevel analysis of knowledge sources for product innovation in Russian SMEs," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(2), pages 247-266, June.
    12. Iacovone, Leonardo & Rauch, Ferdinand & Winters, L. Alan, 2013. "Trade as an engine of creative destruction: Mexican experience with Chinese competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 379-392.
    13. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2006. "Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 4(1), pages 37-74, March.
    14. Yang, Yimin & Schmidt, Peter, 2021. "An econometric approach to the estimation of multi-level models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 532-543.
    15. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    16. Geroski, P. A. & Van Reenen, J. & Walters, C. F., 1997. "How persistently do firms innovate?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-48, March.
    17. Mary Amiti & Amit K. Khandelwal, 2013. "Import Competition and Quality Upgrading," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(2), pages 476-490, May.
    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. Benavente, Jose Miguel & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2021. "How does market competition affect firm innovation incentives in emerging countries? Evidence from Latin American firms," MERIT Working Papers 2021-024, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Benavente, José Miguel & Zuñiga, Pluvia, 2022. "How Does Market Competition Affect Firm Innovation Incentives in Emerging Countries? Evidence from Chile and Colombia," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12198, Inter-American Development Bank.
    3. Sai Ding & Puyang Sun & Wei Jiang, 2016. "The Effect of Import Competition on Firm Productivity and Innovation: Does the Distance to Technology Frontier Matter?," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(2), pages 197-227, April.
    4. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    5. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    6. Mary Amiti & Amit K. Khandelwal, 2013. "Import Competition and Quality Upgrading," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(2), pages 476-490, May.
    7. Liu, Qing & Ma, Hong, 2020. "Trade policy uncertainty and innovation: Firm level evidence from China’s WTO accession," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    8. Sara Barcenilla-Visús & José-María Gómez-Sancho & Carmen López-Pueyo & María-Jesús Mancebón & Jaime Sanaú, 2013. "Technical Change, Efficiency Change and Institutions: Empirical Evidence for a Sample of OECD Countries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89(285), pages 207-227, June.
    9. Eyerusalem Siba & Måns Söderbom & Arne Bigsten & Mulu Gebreeyesus, 2020. "The relationship among enterprise clustering, prices, and productivity in Ethiopia’s manufacturing sector," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 831-854, August.
    10. Renaud Bourlès & Gilbert Cette & Jimmy Lopez & Jacques Mairesse & Giuseppe Nicoletti, 2013. "Do Product Market Regulations In Upstream Sectors Curb Productivity Growth? Panel Data Evidence For OECD Countries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1750-1768, December.
    11. Schetter, Ulrich & Schneider, Maik T. & Jäggi, Adrian, 2024. "Inequality, openness, and growth through creative destruction," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    12. Amable, Bruno & Demmou, Lila & Lezdema, Ivan, 2007. "Competition, Innovation and Distance to Frontier," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 0706, CEPREMAP.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6914 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Jasper Lukkezen & Coen Teulings, 2013. "Optimal fiscal policy," CPB Discussion Paper 242.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Sai Ding & Puyang Sun & Wei Jiang, 2019. "The Effect of Foreign Entry Regulation on Downstream Productivity: Microeconomic Evidence from China," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 925-959, July.
    16. Simon Alder, 2010. "Competition and innovation: does the distance to the technology frontier matter?," IEW - Working Papers 493, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    17. Amiti, Mary & ,, 2009. "Competition and Quality Upgrading," CEPR Discussion Papers 7562, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Alessandro D. SCOPELLITI, 2010. "Competition And Economic Growth: A Critical Survey Of The Theoretical Literature," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 5(1(11)_Spr), pages 70-93.
    19. Scopelliti, Alessandro Diego, 2009. "Competition and Economic Growth: an Empirical Analysis for a Panel of 20 OECD Countries," MPRA Paper 20127, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Alberto Bucci & Vladimir Matveenko, 2017. "Horizontal differentiation and economic growth under non-CES aggregate production function," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 1-29, January.
    21. Bessonova, Evguenia & Gonchar, Ksenia, 2019. "How the innovation-competition link is shaped by technology distance in a high-barrier catch-up economy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 86, pages 15-32.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:idb:brikps:13833. 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: Felipe Herrera Library (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iadbbus.html .

    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.