Firm ownership and size versus innovation activities over the business cycle: near-zero inertia as a sign of the transition from the fifth to the sixth Kondratieff wave

Abstract

Research background: The innovation activity of Polish industrial processing enterprises is examined in a broader time context than typical business cycle frames, which makes it possible to look at the investigated problems from the perspective of Kondratieff waves.

Purpose of the article: The aim of the research is to describe the combined effect of mutual interactions between the ownership and size of Polish industrial processing enterprises on the goals of innovative activity and their degree of importance for the further development of the innovativeness of those firms. These relations are examined in various phases of the business cycle. Additionally, taking secular changes into account made it possible to lend credence to the claim that the global financial crisis is a typical phenomenon for the breakthrough period between two Kondratieff waves.

Methods: A characteristic feature of the applied method is the focus on the combined effect of the enterprise type and ownership structure on firms’ innovation over three periods: prosperity 2004–2006, crisis 2008–2010 and recovery 2012–2014. As regards statistical techniques, the Pearson’s χ^2 independence test and correspondence analysis were applied. The results of the research are presented in a graphic form in three- and two-dimensional correspondence maps, which indicate the co-occurrence of (1) ownership sectors and enterprise types taken together, and (2) effects (goals) of the innovative activity of enterprises, together with the degree of their influence (importance) for further innovative activity. Mutual interactions between ownership sectors and enterprise types were visually analysed, indicating significant features of the triangles representing them.

Findings & Value added: A significant combined effect of the ownership sectors and enterprise types on firms’ innovative activity was found. There was a certain type of dynamic equilibrium between those variables, which changes depending on the business cycle phase. In the global financial crisis of 2008–2010, a surprising phenomenon was found, consisting of the growth of innovative activity in most enterprises as compared to the period of prosperity in 2004–2006. The enterprises achieved the goals assumed, and the degree of their importance proved the significant influence on further innovative activity of those firms. Additionally, it was demonstrated that in the period of recovery (2012–2014) mutual interactions between ownership and size eliminated the relationship between those variables and the goals of innovative activity, and eco-innovations proved to be directly subordinated to traditional types of innovations, mainly product and process innovations. Changes occurring in the last of the examined periods are related to the near-zero inertia of the entire industrial processing section, which allows to interpret the global financial crisis as a typical phenomenon for a breakthrough marking the end of one Kondratieff wave and the beginning of the next. Moreover, 2015 is identified as the year of breakthrough, ending the Fifth and beginning the Sixth Kondratieff Wave, which was related to the transition from the information and telecommunications revolution to the biomedical-hydrogen revolution. The calculations presented in this paper are consistent with those forecasts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abazi-Alili, H. (2014). Innovation activities and firm performance: empirical evidence from transition economies. Journal of Contemporary Economic and Business Issues, 1(2).

Aggarwal, A. (2018). The impact of foreign ownership on research and development intensity and technology acquisition in Indian industries: pre and post global financial crisis. Asian Development Review, 35(1). doi: 10.1162/adev_ a_00103.

Balsarı, Ç. K., Varan, S., & Özkan, S. (2015). Impact of foreign ownership on innovation. Journal of Economics and Management, 20(A).

Beh, E. J., & Lombardo, R. (2014). Correspondence analysis: theory, practice and new strategies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Bitler, M. P., Moskowitz, T. J., & Vissing-Jørgensen, A. (2005). Testing agency theory with entrepreneur effort and wealth. Journal of Finance, 60(2). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00739.x.

Brossard, O., Lavigne, S., & Sakinç, M. E. (2013). Ownership structures and R&D in Europe: the good institutional investors, the bad and ugly impatient shareholders. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4). doi: 10.1093/icc/dtt018.

Carroll, L. (1872). Through the looking-glass, and what Alice found there. London: Macmillan and Co.

Commission Regulation (EU) No. 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty. Official Journal of the European Union, L 187/1, 26.6.2014.

Decker, C., & Günther, C. (2017). The impact of family ownership on innovation: evidence from the German machine tool industry. Small Business Economics, 48(1). doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9775-0.

Démurger, S., Li, S., & Yang, J. (2012). Earnings differentials between the public and private sectors in China: exploring changes for urban local residents in the 2000s. China Economic Review, 23(1). doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2011.08.007.

Dzikowski, P. (2013). Size and ownership of enterprise and innovation activities of food and beverages manufacturers in western Poland in 2009–2012. Management, 17(1). doi: 10.2478/manment-2013-0008.

Dzikowski, P. (2014). The impact of a firm’s size and its ownership on innovation activity in medium-high and high technology sectors. Global Management Journal, 6(1–2).

Falk, M. (2008). Effects of foreign ownership on innovation activities: empirical evidence for twelve European countries. National Institute Economic Review, 204(1). doi: 10.1177/00279501082040011001.

Glynn, D. (2014). Correspondence analysis: exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.). Corpus methods for semantics: quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence analysis in practice. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC – Taylor & Francis Group.

Grinin, L. E., & Grinin, A. L. (2014). The sixth Kondratieff wave and the cybernetic revolution. In. L. E. Grinin, T. C. Devezas & A. V. Korotayev (Eds.). Kondratieff waves. Juglar – Kuznets – Kondratieff. Yearbook. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House.

Hall, B. H., & Jaffe, A. B. (2018). Measuring science, technology, and innovation: a review. Annals of Science and Technology Policy, 2(1). doi: 10.1561/110. 00000005.

Huang, Y., Salike, N., Yin, Z., & Zeng, D. Z. (2017). Enterprise innovation in China: does ownership or size matter? RIEI Working Papers Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Research Institute for Economic Integration, 2017-06.

Jakimowicz, A., & Rzeczkowski, D. (2019a). Diversification of innovation strategies of Polish industrial processing enterprises depending on their size after the global financial crisis. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(4). doi: 10.7341/20191542.

Jakimowicz, A., & Rzeczkowski, D. (2019b). Do barriers to innovation impact changes in innovation activities of firms during business cycle? The effect of the Polish Green Island. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 14(4). doi: 10.24136/eq.2019.030.

Kondratieff, N. D. (1935). The long waves in economic life. Review of Economics and Statistics, 17(6). doi: 10.2307/1928486.

McHugh, M. L. (2013). The Chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2). doi:10.11613/BM.2013.018.

Minetti, R., Murro, P., & Paiella, M. (2015). Ownership structure, governance, and innovation. European Economic Review, 80. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015. 09.007.

Nefiodow, L., & Nefiodow, S. (2014). The sixth Kondratieff. The growth engine of the 21st century. In L. E. Grinin, T. C. Devezas & A. V. Korotayev (Eds.). Kondratieff waves. Juglar – Kuznets – Kondratieff. Yearbook. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House.

Nenadić, O., & Greenacre, M. J. (2007). Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: the ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(3). doi: 10.18637/jss.v020.i03.

Ortega-Argilés, R., Moreno, R., & Caralt, J. S. (2005). Ownership structure and innovation: is there a real link? Annals of Regional Science, 39(4). doi: 10.1007/s00168-005-0026-6.

Pererva, P., Schimpf, K., & Gladenko, I. (2010). Monitoring of efficiency of innovative activity of industrial enterprise. Club of Economics in Miskolc. Theory, Methodology, Practice, 6(2).

Rehman, N.U. (2017). Self-selection and learning-by-exporting hypotheses: micro-level evidence. Eurasian Economic Review, 7(1). doi: 10.1007/s40822-016-0063-8.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: a theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process (Vols. 1–2). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Succurro, M. & Costanzo, G.D. (2019). Ownership structure and firm patenting activity in Italy. Eurasian Economic Review, 9(2). doi: 10.1007/s40822-018-0109-1.

Šmihula, D. (2009). The waves of the technological innovations of the modern age and the present crisis as the end of the wave of the informational technological revolution. Studia Politica Slovaca, 1.

Šmihula, D. (2010). Waves of technological innovations and the end of the information revolution. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 2(4).

Šmihula, D. (2011). Long waves of technological innovations. Studia Politica Slovaca, 2.

Sourial, N., Wolfson, C., Zhu, B., Quail, J., Fletcher, J., Karunananthan, S., Bandeen-Roche, K., Béland, F., & Bergman, H. (2010). Correspondence analysis is a useful tool to uncover the relationships among categorical variables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(6). doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.008.

Van Valen, L. (1973). A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1973(1).

Published
2019-12-29
How to Cite
Jakimowicz, A., & Rzeczkowski, D. (2019). Firm ownership and size versus innovation activities over the business cycle: near-zero inertia as a sign of the transition from the fifth to the sixth Kondratieff wave. Oeconomia Copernicana, 10(4), 689-741. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2019.033
Section
Articles