Foreign Direct Investments Induced Innovation? A Case Study – Macedonia

• Authors: Mico Apostolov

Title variants

Innowacje dzięki bezpośrednim inwestycjom zagranicznym? Studium przypadku – Macedonia

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper, while analysing innovation in Southeast Europe, and in particular the case study of Macedonia, focuses on the basic ties between foreign direct investments and innovation. Foreign direct investment is usually defined as dominant or controlling ownership of a company in one country (the host country), by an entity based in another country. The concept of industry-government-university relationships interprets the change from a dominating industry-government duo in the ‘industrial society’ to a growing triadic relationship between industry-government-university in the ‘knowledge society’.From the beginning of the transition process, foreign direct investments have been a priority, an essential pillar that moves the society forward towards a developed market economy. In addition, as the influx of capital increases it inevitably brings with it increased innovation. Hence we examine the possibility that these two indicators have a positive and upward ascent and facilitate the development of the economy.

PL

Artykuł, poddając analizie innowacje w Europie Południowo-Wschodniej, a w szczególności przypadek Macedonii, koncentruje się na podstawowych zależnościach między bezpośrednimi inwestycjami zagranicznymi a innowacjami. Bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne definiuje się zwykle jako większościowe lub kontrolne prawo własności firmy działającej w danym kraju (kraju przyjmującym), przez podmiot posiadający siedzibę w innym kraju. Teoria relacji państwo-przemysł-uczelnie wyższe wyjaśnia przejście od dominującej relacji przemysł-państwo w „społeczeństwie industrialnym" do rozwijającej się relacji państwo-przemysł-uczelnie wyższe w ramach „społeczeństwa wiedzy". Od początku procesu transformacji, bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne pozostają priorytetem, niezbędnym filarem, który przyczynia się do rozwoju społeczeństwa w kierunku rozwiniętej gospodarki rynkowej. Ponadto zwiększony napływ kapitału nieuchronnie niesie ze sobą rozwój innowacji. Dlatego analizowana jest kwestia, czy te dwa procesy mogą postępować i przyczyniać się do rozwoju gospodarki.

Keywords

EN

FDI; innovation; Southeast Europe; Macedonia

PL

BIZ; innowacje; Europa Południowo-Wschodnia; BIZ; innowacje; Europa Południowo-Wschodnia

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 19
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 5-24

Dates

published

2016-03-30

Contributors

author

Mico Apostolov

• University Goce Delcev

References

• Aitken B., Hanson G.H., et al. (1997). Spillovers, foreign investment, and export behavior. ‘Journal of International Economics’ 43(1–2): 103–132.
• Aitken B., Harrison A., et al. (1996). Wages and foreign ownership A comparative study of Mexico, Venezuela, and the United States.’ Journal of International Economics’ 40(3–4): 345–371.
• Aitken B.J., Harrison A.E. (1999). Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela. ‘American Economic Review’ 89(3): 605–618.
• Apostolov M. (2011). Governance and Enterprise Restructuring: The Case of Macedonia. ‘Transition Studies Review’ 18(2): 299–309.
• Apostolov M. (2013). Governance and enterprise restructuring in Southeast Europe: gross domestic product and foreign direct investments. ‘Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society’ 13(4): 431–438.
• Bandick R., Görg H., et al. (2014). Foreign Acquisitions, Domestic Multinationals, and R&D. ‘The Scandinavian Journal of Economics’ 116(4): 1091–1115.
• Barrios S., Görg H., et al. (2011). Spillovers through backward linkages from multinationals: Measurement matters! ‘European Economic Review’ 55(6): 862–875.
• Blalock G., Gertler P.J. (2008). Welfare gains from Foreign Direct Investment through technology transfer to local suppliers. ‘Journal of International Economics’ 74(2): 402–421.
• Blomström M., Sjöholm F. (1999). Technology transfer and spillovers: Does local participation with multinationals matter? ‘European Economic Review’ 43(4–6): 915–923.
• Branstetter L., Saggi K. (2011). "Intellectual Property Rights, Foreign Direct Investment and Industrial Development*." The Economic Journal 121(555): 1161–1191.
• Cohen B. I. (1973). Comparative Behavior of Foreign and Domestic Export Firms in a Developing Economy. ‘The Review of Economics and Statistics’ 55(2): 190–197.
• Criscuolo C., Haskel J. E., et al. (2010). Global engagement and the innovation activities of firms. ‘International Journal of Industrial Organization’ 28(2): 191–202.
• Djankov S., Murrell P. (2002). Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey. ‘Journal of Economic Literature’ 40(3): 739–792.
• Etzkowitz H. (1993). Enterprises from science: The origins of science-based regional economic development. ‘Minerva’ 31(3): 326–360.
• Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (1995). The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development. ‘EASST Review’ 14(1): 14–19.
• Fors G. (1997). Utilization of R&D Results in the Home and Foreign Plants of Multinationals. ‘The Journal of Industrial Economics’ 45(3): 341–358.
• Friedman M. (2007). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. [in:] Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance. W. Zimmerli, M. Holzinger and K. Richter, Springer (eds) Berlin Heidelberg: 173–178.
• Glass A.J., Saggi K. (1999). Foreign Direct Investment and the Nature of R&D. ‘The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d'Economique’ 32(1): 92–117.
• Gorodnichenko Y., Svejnar J, Terrell K. (2007). When Does FDI Have Positive Spillovers? Evidence from 17 Emerging Market Economies. ‘Centre for Economic Policy Research’, London.
• Greenaway D., Hine R., et al. (2000). Further evidence on the effect of foreign competition on industry level wages. ‘Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv’ 136(3): 522–538.
• Hall R. E., Jones C.I (1999). Why do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker than Others? ‘The Quarterly Journal of Economics’ 114(1): 83–116.
• Haskel J.E., Pereira S.C., et al. (2007). Does Inward Foreign Direct Investment Boost the Productivity of Domestic Firms? ‘Review of Economics and Statistics’ 89(3): 482–496.
• Howenstine N.G., Zeile W.J. (1992). Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: Establishment Data for 1987. ‘Survey of Current Business(October)’: 44–58.
• Jensen M.C. (2010). The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems. ‘Journal of Applied Corporate Finance’ 22(1): 43–58.
• Jensen M.C., Murphy K.J. (1990). Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives. ‘Journal of Political Economy’ 98(2): 225–264.
• Kathuria V. (2000). Productivity spillovers from technology transfer to Indian manufacturing firms. ‘Journal of International Development’ 12(3): 343–369.
• Keay I. (2000). Canadian manufacturers' relative productivity performance, 1907–1990. ‘Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique’ 33(4): 1049–1068.
• Keller W. (2000). Do Trade Patterns and Technology Flows Affect Productivity Growth? ‘World Bank Economic Review’ 14(1): 17–47.
• Keller W., Yeaple S.R. (2009). Multinational Enterprises, International Trade, and Productivity Growth: Firm-Level Evidence from the United States. ‘Review of Economics and Statistics’ 91(4): 821–831.
• Kokko A. (1994). Technology, market characteristics, and spillovers. ‘Journal of Development Economics’ 43(2): 279–293.
• Konings J. (2001). The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms. ‘Economics of Transition’ 9(3): 619–633.
• La Porta R., Lopez-De-Silanes F., et al. (1999). Corporate Ownership Around the World. ‘The Journal of Finance’ 54(2): 471–517.
• Leydesdorff L. (2013). Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. [in:] Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. E. Carayannis, Springer New York (eds.): 1844–1851.
• Leydesdorff L., Meyer M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. ‘Scientometrics’ 83(2): 355–362.
• Lowe C. U. (1982). The triple helix--NIH, industry, and the academic world. ‘Yale J Biol Med’ 55(3-4): 239–246.
• Nelson R. R. (1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? ‘Strategic Management Journal’ 12(S2): 61–74.
• Nickell S.J. (1996). Competition and Corporate Performance. ‘Journal of Political Economy’ 104(4): 724–746.
• Sabato J.A., M. Mackenzie, et al. (1982). La Producción de Tecnología: Autónoma o Transnacional, Instituto Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales.
• Schumpeter J.A. (2013). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Taylor & Francis.
• Smarzynska Javorcik B. (2004). The composition of foreign direct investment and protection of intellectual property rights: Evidence from transition economies. ‘European Economic Review’ 48(1): 39–62.
• Willmore L.N. (1986). ‘The comparative performance of foreign and domestic firms in Brazil. ‘World Development’ 14(4): 489–502.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/cer-2016-0001