IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wdi/papers/2014-1066.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do business groups help or hinder technological progress in emerging markets? Evidence from India

Author

Listed:
  • Sumon K. Bhaumik

    ()

  • Ying Zhou

Abstract

Business groups, which are ubiquitous in emerging market economies, balance the advantages of characteristics such as internal capital markets with the disadvantages such as inefficient internal distribution of resources and suppression of technological and other forms of innovativeness. In this paper, we examine, in the Indian context, whether business group affiliation provides an advantage over unaffiliated (or private independent) firms with respect to technological progress, which lies at the heart of wider economic growth and prosperity. Our results suggest that while business group affiliation did provide an advantage over private independent firms at the start of the sample period (2000), this advantage was more than offset by the turn of the century. We discuss the implications of our results for economic growth rates in emerging market economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Sumon K. Bhaumik & Ying Zhou, 2014. "Do business groups help or hinder technological progress in emerging markets? Evidence from India," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp1066, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  • Handle: RePEc:wdi:papers:2014-1066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/133086/1/wp1066.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ishtiaq P. Mahmood & Will Mitchell, 2004. "Two Faces: Effects of Business Groups on Innovation in Emerging Economies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1348-1365, October.
    2. Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Jan Svejnar & Katherine Terrell, 2010. "Globalization and Innovation in Emerging Markets," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 194-226, April.
    3. Chad Syverson, 2011. "What Determines Productivity?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 326-365, June.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Claire Lelarge & John Van Reenen & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2007. "Technology, Information, and the Decentralization of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 122(4), pages 1759-1799.
    5. David ZWEIG, 2006. "Competing for talent: China's strategies to reverse the brain drain," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 145(1-2), pages 65-90, March.
    6. Sourafel Girma & Holger Görg, 2007. "Multinationals' Productivity Advantage: Scale Or Technology?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(2), pages 350-362, April.
    7. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Das, Pranab Kumar & Kumbhakar, Subal C., 2012. "A stochastic frontier approach to modelling financial constraints in firms: An application to India," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1311-1319.
    8. Granovetter, Mark, 1995. "Coase Revisited: Business Groups in the Modern Economy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 93-130.
    9. Sabuj Kumar Mandal, 2009. "Technological Progress, Scale Effect and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Cement Industry: Panel Estimation of Stochastic Production Frontier," Working Papers 216, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.
    10. Dani Rodrik & Arvind Subramanian, 2005. "From "Hindu Growth" to Productivity Surge: The Mystery of the Indian Growth Transition," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 52(2), pages 193-228, September.
    11. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Dimova, Ralitza, 2004. "How important is ownership in a market with level playing field?: The Indian banking sector revisited," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 165-180, March.
    12. Schmidt, Peter & Sickles, Robin C, 1984. "Production Frontiers and Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 2(4), pages 367-374, October.
    13. Tarun Khanna & Yishay Yafeh, 2007. "Business Groups in Emerging Markets: Paragons or Parasites?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(2), pages 331-372, June.
    14. Mahmood, Ishtiaq P. & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2004. "Business groups: entry barrier-innovation debate revisited," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 513-531, August.
    15. Choi, Suk Bong & Lee, Soo Hee & Williams, Christopher, 2011. "Ownership and firm innovation in a transition economy: Evidence from China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 441-452, April.
    16. Marie-Ange VEGANZONES-VAROUDAKIS & Arup MITRA & Chandan SHARMA, 2011. "Total Factor Productivity and Technical Efficiency of Indian Manufacturing: The Role of Infrastructure and Information & Communication Technology," Working Papers 201115, CERDI.
    17. Bong-Kyo Seo & Keun Lee & Xiaozu Wang, 2010. "Causes for changing performance of the business groups in a transition economy: market-level versus firm-level factors in China -super-‡," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(6), pages 2041-2072, December.
    18. Jeremy T. Fox & Valérie Smeets, 2011. "Does Input Quality Drive Measured Differences In Firm Productivity?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(4), pages 961-989, November.
    19. Raja Kali, 2003. "Business groups, the financial market and modernization," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 11(4), pages 671-696, December.
    20. Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Toolsema, Linda A., 2008. "Tunneling and propping: A justification for pyramidal ownership," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 2178-2187, October.
    21. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
    22. Sharon Belenzon & Tomer Berkovitz, 2010. "Innovation in Business Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 519-535, March.
    23. Greene, William, 2005. "Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 269-303, June.
    24. Saul Estrin & Svetlana Poukliakova & Daniel Shapiro, 2009. "The Performance Effects of Business Groups in Russia," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 393-420, May.
    25. Marianne Bertrand & Paras Mehta & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2002. "Ferreting out Tunneling: An Application to Indian Business Groups," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(1), pages 121-148.
    26. Maitreesh Ghatak & Raja Kali, 2001. "Financially Interlinked Business Groups," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(4), pages 591-619, December.
    27. Gopalan, Radhakrishnan & Nanda, Vikram & Seru, Amit, 2007. "Affiliated firms and financial support: Evidence from Indian business groups," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 759-795, December.
    28. Sangho Kim & Muthusamy Saravanakumar, 2012. "Economic Reform and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Indian Manufacturing Industries," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 152-166, February.
    29. Jondrow, James & Knox Lovell, C. A. & Materov, Ivan S. & Schmidt, Peter, 1982. "On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 233-238, August.
    30. Kali, Raja, 1999. "Endogenous Business Networks," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 615-636, October.
    31. Mark Doms & Eric J. Bartelsman, 2000. "Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 569-594, September.
    32. Sumon Kumar Bhaumik & Shubhashis Gangopadhyay & Shagun Krishnan, 2009. "Reforms and Entry: Some Evidence from the Indian Manufacturing Sector," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 658-672, November.
    33. Kock, Carl J & Guillen, Mauro F, 2001. "Strategy and Structure in Developing Countries: Business Groups as an Evolutionary Response to Opportunities for Unrelated Diversification," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 77-113, March.
    34. Kannan Ramaswamy & Mingfang Li & Barbara Petitt, 2012. "Why do business groups continue to matter? A study of market failure and performance among Indian manufacturers," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 643-658, September.
    35. Battese, George E. & Coelli, Tim J., 1988. "Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 387-399, July.
    36. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Business groups; Technological progress; India;

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • L21 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Business Objectives of the Firm
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

    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:wdi:papers:2014-1066. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (WDI). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/wdumius.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.