Abstract
This article aims to compare innovative behavior between multinational (EMN) and national ( ENA) firms in razil by sector of industrial activity. The variables of comparison are those traditionally recommended by literature (intensity of technological change, sources and results of innovation, learning and technological trajectory) and which are in Pintec 2003 from IBGE. The comparison is performed through the calculation of similarity indexes and correlation coefficients between the propensity to execute the different innovative activities between both groups (ENA and EMN) and by sectors, as well as indexes of technological autonomy and dependency. The main results show that: i) EMN have more propensity to be innovative, but not to be “highly innovative”; ii) for all variables examined and for most sectors, the differences in innovative behavior between the two groups are irrelevant in aggregate terms, which means that the innovative activity of the firm is more driven by sectorial technological imperatives; and iii) for most of the variables object of comparison, the sectors that have major differences in behavior are practically the same (manufacture of wearing apparel, metallurgy, other industrial products, refined petroleum products, motor vehicles, instruments and communications equipment), which suggest that the aspects related to structure and organization of the firm may be more relevant than the sectorial technological imperatives.References
ARCHIBUGI, D. The sectoral structure of innovative activities in Italy. Results and methodology. Tesis (doctoral) – Universidad de Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit, Brighton, 1991.
ARCHIBUGI, D.; CESARATTO, S.; SIRILLI, G. Sources of innovative activities and industrial organization in Italy. Research Policy, v. 20, p. 299-313, 1991.
CANTWELL, J. The globalism of technology: what remains of the product cycle model. Cambridge Journal of Economics, v. 19, p. 155-174, 1995.
CANTWELL, J.; JANNE, O. Technological globalisation and innovative centres: the role of corportate technological leadership and locational hierarchy. Research Policy, v. 28, p. 119-144, 1999.
COHEN, W.M.; LEVINTHAL, D.A. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, v. 99, p. 569-596, Sept. 1989.
DOSI, G. Sources, procedures and microeconomics effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, v. 26, p. 1120-1171, 1988.
DUNNING, J.H. Multinational enterprises and the globalisation of innovatory capacity. Research Policy, v. 23, p. 67-88, 1994.
GARCÍA-GARCÍA, C.E. El proceso de innovación en la empresa. Competencias y aprendizaje organizativos en la producción de conocimiento para la innovación. Economía Industrial, v. 301, p. 27-36, 1995.
GERYBADZE, A.; REGER, G. Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy, v. 28, n. 2-3, p. 251-274, 1999.
HOWELLS, J. The location and organization of research and development: new horizons. Research Policy, v. 19, n. 2, p. 133-146, Apr. 1990.
ITO, B.; WAKASUGI, R. What factors determine the mode of overseas R&D by multinationals? Empirical evidence. Research Policy, v. 36, n. 5, p. 1275-1287, 2007.
KLEVORICK, A.K. et al. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, v. 24, p. 185-205, 1995.
KUROKAWA, S. The relationship between internal R&D capabilities and external technology adquisitions: small technology-based firms in the U.S. and Japan. In: KOJIMA, K. (Ed.). Innovation and business dynamism in Japan and Korea. Kobe, Kobe University, 1992. p. 101-111.
LEVIN, R.C. Appropriability, R&D Spending, and Technological Performance. American Economic Review, v. 78, n. 2, p. 424-428, May 1988.
LEVIN, R.C. et al. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, v. 3, p. 783-820, 1987.
MALERBA, F. Learning by firms and incremental technical change. The Economic Journal, n. 102, p. 845-859, 1992.
MALERBA, F.; ORSENIGO, L. Technological regimes and patterns of innovation: a theoretical and empirical investigation of the italian case. In: HEERTJE A.; PERLMAN M., (Ed.). Evolving Technology and Market Structure: Studies in Schumpeterian Economics. USA: The University of Michigan Press, 1990. p. 283-305.
MANSFIELD., E.; RAPOPORTS, J. The costs of industrial products innovations. Management Science, v. 21, n. 12, p. 1380-1386, Ago. 1975.
OCDE. Proposed Guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data: Oslo manual. 1. ed. Paris: OCDE, 1992.
PATEL, P.; PAVITT, K. Patterns of technological activity: their measurement and interpretation. In: STONEMAN P. (Ed.). Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers LTD, 1995.
PATEL, P.; VEGA, M. Patterns of internationalisation of corporate technology: location versus home country advantages. Research Policy, v. 28, n. 2-3, p. 145-155, 1999.
PAVITT, K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, v. 13, n. 6, p. 343-373, 1984.
PEARCE, R.D. Factors influencing the internationalization of R&D in multinational enterprises. In: BUCKLEY, P.J.; CASSON, M. Multinational enterprises in the world economy. England: Edgar Elgar Publishing LTD, 1992.p. 75-95.
VON HIPPEL, E. The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1988.
The content of the articles and reviews published in RBI are of absolute and exclusive responsibility of their authors.
Downloads
