SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

  • Home
  • Issues
  • 2015
  • No 4
  • The role of the concentration of foreign investment and government support in the innovation strategy of the russian enterprises of the ICT industry

The role of the concentration of foreign investment and government support in the innovation strategy of the russian enterprises of the ICT industry

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 13 (no. 4),

Current studies on model analysis of the relationship between innovation and the growth of industry in developing countries at the macro- and micro-levels to date have shown that there are two methods of the development of innovation systems. The first method involves international technology transfer, including the strategy of borrowing new technologies through importation of innovative technologies. The second method involves fostering of the domestic innovation, scientific and technological potential, which is an important factor in the development and growth of the economy, especially when the country is at the technological frontier. However, these studies in the field of analysis of the development of businesses & industries, and modeling effective ways of their development do not consider the specifics of the innovative business strategies, accordingly, do not cover the problem of mathematical modeling of the impact of economic conditions on performance indicators of enterprises, which are using different innovative strategies. This article analyzes the impact of concentration of the industry, state support, foreign direct investment and learning abilities of the staff on the companies, which either import innovative technologies or produce their own new technologies in the field of ICT. The analysis of the significance of these factors for companies utilizing different innovative business strategies was based on Pearson correlation coefficients. This article attempts to analyze the process of technological development in the developing countries by assessing the impact of internal and external factors on the companies, utilizing strategies of borrowing/importation of innovative technologies or producing them, based on the analysis and modeling of statistical data of the ICT industry. The analysis showed that most of the companies in the industry are using the strategy of borrowing/importation of new technologies. The key factors affecting the companies that utilize this strategy include the level of concentration of the industry, the amount of foreign direct investment and state support. The findings led to a number of conclusions about the effectiveness of the state management of the development of industry sectors.


Keywords: innovative business strategy; dynamic capability; foreign direct investment; state support; high-tech sector; ICT

References:
  • Razvadovskaya Y.V., Lozhnikova A.V.andGeyser A.A. (2014). Computer modeling of potential projects of reshoring: accounting schemes of rational allocation of production capacity in the context of the global division of labor. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. The Economy, no. 4, pp. 150–157. (In Russian.)
  • Razvadovskaya J.V., Lozhnikova A.V. and Shevchenko I.K. (2015). Territorial and sectoral planning strategies of reshoring and reindustrialization. National interests: priorities and security, no. 10 (295), pp. 2–10. (In Russian.)
  • Razvadovskaya Y.V.and Shevchenko I.K. (2014). The role of foreign direct investment and transnational corporations in the development of the metallurgical complex of Russia. Terra Economicus, vol.12, no. 2, pp. 82–87. (In Russian.)
  • Razvadovskaya Y.V.and Shevchenko I.K. (2014). Economic-mathematical analysis of the impact of state and foreign direct investment in the development of the industry dynamics. The economic analysis: theory and practice, no. 47(398), pp. 14–22. (In Russian.)
  • Aitken B.J. and Harrison A.E. (1997). Do domestic firmsbenefit from direct foreign investments? Evidence from Venezuela. Am. Econ. Rev. 89, pp. 605–618.
  • Bain J. (1951). Relation of profit rate to industry concentration: American manufacturing 1936–1940. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65.
  • Belman D. and Heywood J.S. (1990). The concentration – earnings hypothesis: reconciling individual and industry data in US studies. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(3).
  • Blomström M. and Kokko A. (1996). Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(2), pp. 1–31.
  • Blomström M. and Sjöholm F. (1999). Technology transfer and spillovers: does local participation with multinationals matter? Eur. Econ. Rev., 43, pp. 915–923.
  • Borensztein E., De Gregorio J. and Lee J.W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? J. Int. Econ, 45, pp. 115–135.
  • Buck T., Filatochev I., Wright M. and Zhukov V. (1998). Corporate governance and employee ownership in an economic crisis: Enterprise strategies in the former USSR. Journal of Comparative Economics, 27(3), pp. 459–474.
  • Cantner U. and Pyka A. (2001). Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Research Policy, 30, pp. 759–775.
  • Caves R.E. (1999). Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Coe D., Helpman E. and Hoffmaister A. (1997). North-south R&D spillovers. Econ. J., 107, pp. 134–149.
  • Cohen W.M. and Levinthal D.A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99, pp. 569–596.
  • Donsimoni M., Geroski P. and Jacquemin A. (1984). Concentration indices and market power: two views. Journal of Industrial Economics, 32(4).
  • Estrin S. (2002). Competition and corporate governance in transition. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (1), pp. 101–124.
  • Fagerberg J. and Srholec M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research Policy, 37, pp. 1417–1435.
  • Hoekman B.K., Maskus K. and Saggi K. (2005). Transfer of technology to developing countries: unilateral and multilateral policy options. World Development, 33(10), pp. 1587–1602.
  • IMF, World Bank, OECD and EBRD (1991). A study of the Soviet economy. OECD, Paris.
  • Jones D., Klinedienst C. and Mark R. (1998). Productive efficiency during transition: evidence from Bulgarian panel data. Journal of Comparative Economics, 26(3), pp. 446–464.
  • Lall S. (1992). Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Development, 20, pp. 165–186.
  • Levy D. (1985). Specifying the dynamics of industry concentration. Journal of Industrial Economics, 34(1).
  • Malerba F. (2005). Sectoral systems of innovation: a framework for linking innovationto the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors. Economic Innovation New Technology, 14 (1–2), pp. 63–82.
  • Malerba F. and Orsenigo L. (2000). Knowledge, innovative activities and industry evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, pp. 289–314.
  • Malerba F.F. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1).
  • Malerbra F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), pp. 247–264.
  • Meyer K.E. (2001). International business research on transition economies / In: Rugman A. and Brewer T. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of International Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 716–759.
  • Park Y.-T. (1999). Technology diffusion policy: a review and classification of policy practices. Technology in Society, 21, pp. 275–286.
  • Scherer F. and Ross D. (1990). Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  • Stevenson R. (1982). X-inefficiency and interfirm rivalry: evidence from the electric utility industry. Land Economics, 58(1).
  • United Nations (2001). World Investment Report 2001. Geneva.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606