Do SME?s innovation strategies influence their effectiveness of innovation? Some evidence from the case of Podkarpackie as peripheral region in Poland

• Authors: Anna Lewandowska , Mateusz Stopa

Abstracts

EN

Research background: Innovation is a very important pillar within a knowledge-based economy, in the regional and local perspective as well. A literature review on innovation and SME innovation strategies to their correlation and the possibility of their joint examination. Purpose of the article: The aim of this paper is to explore the SME?s innovation strategies and their impact on effectiveness of innovation in a peripheral region. We investigate the effects of innovation activities not only among small and medium, but also micro firms which are not covered in official innovation surveys by the national statistical offices. We proposed a model of implementing innovation, and tested our hypotheses. Methods: Research was based on data drawn from CATIs carried out among 419 firms, therefore making a conceptual contribution to the knowledge on innovation strategy. The main statistical test for relationships and dependencies was the chi-square independence test. To arbitrate whether there were statistically significant differences between medians due to different factors among enterprises, analysis for variance (H Kruskal-Wallis? test for k independent samples) procedure was implemented. Findings & Value added: The results of our research show that among SMEs in peripheral regions dominated those which we call ?pragmatists? and ?imitators? in context of their approach towards innovation. The significance of objective factors showed that there was a lack of enterprises that could play the role of ?creators of innovation? in the peripheral region. However, the examined firms more often noticed positive than negative aspects of introduced innovations, which is determined by the scale of enterprise; they were focused mainly on the consequences of innovation for their products and services.

Keywords

EN

innovation strategy; SMEs; entrepreneurship; peripheral region

• Publisher: Instytut Badań Gospodarczych
• Journal: Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 521-536

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Anna Lewandowska

• University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów

• https://orcid.org/0000000253518490

author

Mateusz Stopa

• Independent researcher

• https://orcid.org/0000000292865073

References

• Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4). doi: 10.1007/s 11187-013-9505-9.
• Adair, A., Berry, J. & McGreal, S. (1995). Property investment in peripheral regions. Journal of Property Finance, 6(2). doi: 10.1108/09588689510096088.
• Anderson, A., Jack, S., & McAuley, A. (2001). Periphery? What periphery? Marketing to a state of mind. Marketing Review, 14(1).
• Anderson, A. R. (2000). Paradox in the periphery: an entrepreneurial reconstruction? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(2). doi: 10.1080/089856 200283027.
• Asheim, B. T., Smith, H. L., & Oughton, Ch. (2011). Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and policy. Regional Studies, 45(7). doi: 10.1080/00343404. 2011.596701.
• Buhalis, D., & Main, H. (1998). Information technology in peripheral small and medium hospitality enterprises: strategic analysis and critical factors. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(5). doi: 10.1108/ 09596119810227811.
• Cooke, P. (1996). The new wave of regional innovation networks: analysis, characteristics and strategy. Small Business Economics, 8(2). doi: 10.1007/BF00394 424.
• Doloreux, D., & Dionne, S. (2008). Is regional innovation system development possible in peripheral regions? Some evidence from the case of La Pocatière, Canada. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 20(3). doi: 10.1080/0898 5620701795525.
• Eiriz, V., Faria, A., & Barbosa, N. (2013). Firm growth and innovation: towards a typology of innovation strategy. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 15(1). doi: 10.5172/impp.2013.15.1.97.
• Fritsch, M., & Slavtchev, V. (2011). Determinants of the efficiency of regional innovation systems. Regional Studies, 45(7). doi: 10.1080/0034340080225 1494.
• Grillitsch, M., & Nilsson, M. (2015). Innovation in peripheral regions: do collaborations compensate for a lack of local knowledge spillovers? Annals of Regional Science, 54(3). doi: 10.1007/s00168-014-0655-8.
• Harris, R., & Trainor, M. (2011). A matching analysis of why some firms in peripheral regions undertake R&D whereas others do not. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 20(4). doi: 10.1080/10438599.2010.494098.
• Harris, R. I. D., McAdam, R., & Reid, R. S. (2005). A comparative analysis of innovation strategy and implementation in the U.K.: the effects of peripherality. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4). doi: 10.1142/S1363919 605001332.
• Inzelt, A., & Szerb, L. (2006). The innovation activity in a stagnating county of Hungary. Acta Oeconomica, 56(3). doi: 10.1556/AOecon.56.2006.3.2.
• Lejpras, A. (2015). Knowledge, location, and internationalization: empirical evidence for manufacturing SMEs. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 24(8). doi: 10.1080/10438599.2014.997460.
• Lewandowska, A., & Stopa, M. (2013). Innovation quality. Qualitative perspective of innovation leaders in Podkarpackie region, Poland. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 81.
• Lewandowska, A., & Stopa, M. (2016). Innovation strategies in SMEs. Some evidence from the case of Podkarpackie, Poland. Modern Management Review, 21, 23(4). doi: 10.7862/rz.2016.mmr.49.
• Lewandowska, A., & Stopa, M. (2018). SMEs innovativeness and institutional support system: the local experiences in qualitative perspective. Polish case study. Oeconomia Copernicana, 9(2). doi: 10.24136/oc.2018.017.
• Nazarov, Z. & Akhmedjonov, A. (2012). Education, on-the-job training, and innovation in transition economies. Eastern European Economics, 50(6). doi: 10.2753/EEE0012-8775500602.
• Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2016 (2016). Brussels: European Commission.
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., Di Cataldo, M., & Rainoldi, A. (2014). The role of government institutions for smart specialisation and regional development. European Commission, Directorate - Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), 2014.
• Smith, H. L., & Waters, R. (2011). Scientific labour markets, networks and regional innovation systems. Regional Studies, 45(7). doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011. 557655.
• Yang, J., & Ying, L. (2016). A study on the effects of knowledge management on innovation strategies and competitive advantages. Acta Oeconomica, 65(2). doi: 10.1556/032.65.2015.S2.12.
• Vaz, E., De Noronha Vaz, T., Galindo, P. V., & Nijkamp, P. (2014). Modelling innovation support systems for regional development – analysis of cluster structures in innovation in Portugal. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(1-2). doi: 10.1080/08985626.2013.860193.
• Woźniak, L., Lewandowska, A., Pater, R., Stopa, M., & Chrzanowski M.(2015). Why do we need innovation? The problem of innovation in the peripheral region. Evidence from the case of Podkarpackie. Rzeszów: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Rzeszowskiej.
• Zajkowski, R., & Domańska, A. (2019). Differences in perception of regional proentrepreneurial policy: does obtaining support change a prospect? Oeconomia Copernicana, 10(2). doi: 10.24136/oc.2019.018.

Identifiers

DOI

10.24136/eq.2019.025

Biblioteka Nauki

22446401